For offshore vessel operators, having more data does not automatically mean using less fuel. The real gains come when information reaches the people making day-to-day operational decisions, according to Arnaud Dianoux, Founder and CEO of Opsealog.
Operators now have access to fuel dashboards, vessel performance reports and detailed data feeds, yet many still rely on spreadsheets. Dianoux says the difference between collecting information and achieving measurable savings comes down to what happens after the data has been gathered.
“Monitoring creates visibility, but reduction comes from turning that visibility into routine operational decisions,” he says.
That can mean relatively simple changes. Reducing unnecessary idle and standby time, reviewing the number of engines in use, improving transit practices and making better use of deck space and deadweight can all reduce fuel consumption.
“It’s often the small adjustments to planning, sequencing and routines that become the most powerful when repeated across a fleet,” Dianoux says.
Finding waste in everyday operations
Opsealog monitors more than 1,000 vessels, giving Dianoux a broad view of where inefficiencies emerge in offshore support operations.
Some of the biggest problems are not particularly technical. Instead, they have become accepted parts of daily operations. Vessels wait for worksites to become ready, cargo schedules change, priorities move and crews have to adapt in real time.
That can result in significant amounts of non-productive time.
“Offshore logistics still run too often in ‘emergency mode’, where plans are adjusted continuously and vessels remain on standby longer than intended,” Dianoux says.
Underused vessel capacity is another issue. Inefficient use of deck space or deadweight can lead to unnecessary trips or poor sequencing. Dianoux also points to differences between sister vessels. Two vessels with broadly similar specifications can produce very different results because of differences in planning, onboard routines and shore-side coordination.
Benchmarking can help expose those differences, but only when comparisons are made between vessels and operations that are genuinely comparable.
“A PSV, an AHTS, a multipurpose support vessel and a crew boat do not work in the same way,” he says. Comparing similar vessels performing similar tasks can reveal whether differences in fuel consumption come from transit practices, standby behaviour, deck utilisation, engine issues, hull condition or coordination with shore teams.
The objective is then to identify the better routine and repeat it across the fleet.
AI as an operational co-pilot
Dianoux sees AI having a useful role in this process, although he is cautious about presenting it as a replacement for the people operating vessels.
“Its most useful role today is as a co-pilot: detecting patterns, flagging exceptions faster and more accurately, and translating that into practical guidance that crews and shore teams can act on,” he says.
For offshore operations, explainability will be particularly important. Recommendations need to make sense to crews and coordinators, who must understand why an action has been suggested and what information supports it.
“A black-box recommendation is unlikely to gain trust,” Dianoux says.
Over the next five years, he expects AI to help identify recurring inefficiencies, turn large volumes of operational information into recommendations for different users and connect operational performance more closely with contract and ESG reporting.
But the technology still rests on the quality of the information beneath it. “AI will only be as useful as the data, workflows and operational expertise beneath it,” Dianoux says. “Without clean data, shared definitions and human judgement, it risks becoming another layer of noise.”
Cutting emissions before changing fuels
For Dianoux, digital optimisation has a practical role to play while the industry works towards wider adoption of alternative fuels and new vessel technologies.
Offshore operators face particular challenges because fuels such as methanol, ammonia and hydrogen are not yet available at the scale, cost or operational readiness required for many support operations.
That leaves considerable scope for existing vessels to operate more efficiently.
Opsealog’s work with Bourbon provides one example. A 25-vessel pilot delivered savings of around 45 to 50 tonnes of CO2 per vessel per month before being expanded across a fleet of 104 vessels. More recently, work with ADNOC Logistics & Services across more than 100 offshore support vessels contributed to reductions of 55,600 tonnes of CO2 and 20,400m³ of fuel.
Dianoux stresses that these figures should not be treated as universal benchmarks, but says they demonstrate what can be achieved when monitoring is connected to consistent operational action.
There are also situations where fuel efficiency has to take a back seat to safety, client requirements, weather or worksite conditions. Extended standby, including Dynamic Positioning within the 500-metre zone, can create particular tensions when a vessel is waiting for work to begin.
“The objective is not to optimise fuel at the expense of the operation, but to identify where fuel can be reduced without compromising safety, service delivery or contractual obligations,” Dianoux says.
The answer, he argues, is better coordination between the vessel and shore. If teams can see why fuel is being consumed and why standby is occurring, they can distinguish between fuel use that was necessary and fuel use that could have been avoided through better planning.
For offshore fleets, that makes efficiency less about finding a single technological fix and more about creating a repeatable process: identify the gap, act, measure the result and apply what works elsewhere.
“New fuels will be needed,” Dianoux says, “but operational optimisation is one of the most practical ways to reduce emissions now, while the fuel transition continues to mature.”
