
Drones are taking off in the oil industry, especially in dangerous offshore work - grej
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-21/flying-robots-replace-oil-roughnecks
======
brianmwaters_hn
Okay, I used to actually do inspections on oil refineries and wind turbines
using rope access techniques, so I think this is a good one for me to chime in
on.

In rope access, we like to pride ourselves on being the technology that can
get the job done faster, safer, and more flexibly than older methods (say,
scaffolding or boom lifts). I kind of see drones as having the same
advantages, but squared - kind of like LED light bulbs compared to CFL's,
compared to incandescent.

However, this Bloomberg article doesn't mention any of the downsides of drone
inspection. Last time I checked (and I've been out of the industry for about a
year), there were concerns over the quality of the photos taken by drone
teams, although there is room for the technology and the skills get better
there fast. The real caveat here, though, is the limited usefulness of visual
inspection in an oil and gas environment. Most of the work done on-rope is UT
(ultrasonic testing), which requires hands-on contact with the structure, and
RT (radiographic testing), which involves lethal doses of radiation aimed in
specific directions. Obviously, this would be wildly dangerous from an
aircraft, and will probably never happen regardless of technology.

So I see a place for drones today in visual inspection of equipment while it's
online, but I can't imagine a near-term drone-based technology that would be
able to carry out UT. So us rope guys will be in business for a while longer.

~~~
seanp2k2
If it can fly with enough precision (say, keeping within 4" from the surface,
or directly contacting the surface with an instrument; not sure what the
requirement is) and the equipment can be made light enough that inspections
can be completed without an egregious number of returns to base to recharge, I
feel like even ultrasonic testing would be feasible.

As far as RT, it seems like it'd be a much _better_ idea to do that with
robots instead of humans who get cancer. I'm assuming that there aren't any
other people within a range that would get a significant dose of radiation
during this testing, but even if, it would seem to me that automated
inspection could be made more precise and safer than humans could do,
eventually.

Definitely an interesting time to be alive :)

~~~
brianmwaters_hn
For UT, the surface needs to be directly contacted with an instrument; but
that's not all.

First, insulation must be cut off and disposed of (properly). It's usually tin
flashing covering some kind of insulating material. If the insulation is
asbestos, then it's not acceptable to have any of it blow off into the wind at
all.

Next, the surface has to be polished, usually with a rasp or grinder, so that
the probe has clean metal to make contact with.

Then, the probe, coated in ultrasonic-conducting jelly, gets applied to the
surface, and must maintain sufficient contact for as long as it takes for the
instrument to get a reading (at least a few seconds, and it's not always
reliable). This step has been done in the past with robots, albeit in
different access environments.

Finally, the insulation gets re-applied, covered in tin flashing, and sealed
with caulk.

I'm not saying it's not possible in principle for a flying robot to carry out
steps one, two, and four, but I can't forsee a technology able to do this
within, say, the next ten years.

As for RT, you have to understand that a lot of refinery inspections are done
in what's called turnarounds - where the refinery is _turned completely off_
for a week or two at a time. Tons of contractors are called in to work
overtime on top of one another in order to carry out planned maintenance and
get the thing back online ASAP (time is money - big money). Obviously,
_extreme care_ is taken when doing RT in this kind of environment, because a
mistake can be extremely dangerous.

It simply isn't safe, in any universe, with any technology, to put a
radiographic source (actual radioactive elements) on a flying object and zip
it around in the middle of a refinery turnaround. Period. Maybe during normal
operations, but only at the cost of extreme interruption of everybody's work -
eg, everybody literally has to exit the entire facility.

EDIT: on second thought, having everyone leave the refinery isn't even
possible without turning the thing off. There are operators who need to be on-
site at all times, monitoring and making adjustments to the various processes.
And sometimes a valve really does need to be turned by hand ;)

------
flyinglizard
We (Phobotic) are developing an inspection specific, long range gimbal payload
(EO, IR and other sensor options). Its a significant market, perhaps the first
real place commercial drones can make actual money. Powerlines, rails, mining,
oil and gas, all require good coverage and willing to pay.

Oil rigs are one thing (they are relatively small), but if you want to inspect
piping over a long range there's a real challenge with getting usable data out
of your sensors (without having to fly the drone within yards of the surveyed
object, of course).

~~~
votingprawn
Are you talking Cloud Cap style turret gimbals? If so I'd be interesting in
hearing more, as we're always on the hunt for more payloads for our larger
(20kg) fixed wing aircraft.

~~~
flyinglizard
Similar, but very light (sub 2kg) and probably cheaper, and much higher image
quality on the visible spectrum (1080p without any digital stabilization).

Will be happy to hear from you - roee at phobotic is my mail.

------
curtis
This probably shouldn't be surprising since the oil industry has been using
"underwater drones" (ROVs) for some time now.

~~~
enraged_camel
Yes, for about 30 years. My uncle used to work as an engineer on an oil rig in
the Gulf, and he had some fun stories about his experiences writing remote-
control software for underwater ROVs.

Due to the intricate nature of the work the ROVs sometimes did, and the
limited size of the onboard battery, the software had to be incredibly
efficient. For instance, it had to take into account the variances in water
temperature at various depths, since signals travel at ever-so-slightly
different speeds depending on temperature. So the pillars carrying the rigs
had temperature sensors every X feet that reported the water temperature in
real-time, and the software took that into account to minimize latency and
increase responsiveness for the pilot.

This one time, a ship was transporting a $500,000 computer onto the rig, and
the crane snapped, sending the computer into the ocean. They were going to
give up on it, but my uncle pulled an all-nighter and wrote a piece of
software that calculated the possible locations the package could travel to
given currents at various depths, and the next morning they sent ROVs to scan
the ocean floor at those locations and were able to find the computer and
carry it back tot the surface. The outside casing was crushed due to the
pressure but it was still intact. :)

~~~
brianmwaters_hn
That is so cool. We're used to thinking of programming as a sort-of abstract
job that is that takes a long time to do and gets deployed to everyone. It's
really cool to hear about a programmer being able to make an on-the-spot
operational impact on a real work site.

Also, I wonder how the hell the thing survived?

------
blazespin
"Oil and gas is a big vertical, but the same technology applies to lots of
industries — wind farms, solar, other refineries, pipelines and other fixed
infrastructure," says Simon Menashy, investment director at venture capital
firm MMC Ventures, which invested $4 million in Sky Futures in May. That's
before even looking at construction and agriculture. "There is lots of
opportunity," he adds.

------
rhizome
I've been having a feeling that drones are going to be allowed everywhere
except for private operators. As long as there's government or a corporation
behind them, drone use will be legal.

~~~
asynchronous13
Depends on which country you live in. The U.S. is lagging far behind in terms
of regulations for unmanned aircraft compared to other countries.

~~~
Malstrond
That is actually better for _private_ operators (aka R/C aircraft hobbyists).
In Germany for example: Autonomous flight not allowed, using video downlink to
fly (FPV) not allowed, in France extensive licensing is needed for aerial
imagery even if you would only take a shot of your own backyard, etc.

~~~
pm90
I wonder how its possible to enforce these regulations? I guess one way would
be simply not allowing drones to be sold in the open markets.

