Op-Ed: What 1,000 OSVs taught us about offshore performance

Arnaud Dianoux is the founder and CEO of Opsealog.

The marine offshore support sector is entering a new chapter. Operators are navigating familiar pressures including high utilization, tight supply, and rising expectations around efficiency and emissions. But the most important shift is internal. More teams now recognize that performance is not determined by one-off initiatives, but by the routines that guide daily decisions onboard and ashore.

After more than a decade for Opsealog working across offshore support fleets, with insight spanning over 1,000 offshore support vessels, it has become clear that performance is won or lost in day-to-day practice. That is why many operators are moving away from broad, generic digital “to-do lists” and toward tools and workflows that help crews and operations managers act consistently, as well as helping commercial teams to verify performance results.

When you look across fleets at scale, the biggest gains consistently show up in three places: using less fuel for the work performed, cutting idle or standby time between tasks, and improving availability. Each of these outcomes is familiar. The difference is that fleet-scale insight helps identify where gains are genuinely repeatable, and what tends to drift when oversight pauses.

One lesson is that basic good practice is not always applied as routinely as people assume. In many fleets, a surprisingly large share of vessel life sits in non-productive time, not because teams are neglecting performance, but because marine offshore logistics still runs too often in “emergency mode,” with planning changing in real time and handoffs between stakeholders creating gaps where vessels wait, drift, or remain on standby longer than expected. On production sites, this is increasingly unsustainable.

Offshore logistics needs to shift toward regular, structured vessel rotations that secure the logistics chain in the same way a reliable metro system secures a city’s movement. Today, it can feel like a metro where trains have no fixed schedule, routes are improvised, and stops are not reliably observed, resulting in lost time, wasted energy, and avoidable emissions.  The fix is not more reporting, but vessel planning that is clearly defined, fully respected, and measured, so operators can reduce idle time, stabilize performance, and turn fuel and emissions savings into outcomes that hold up under scrutiny.

Another consistent finding is that capacity is underused more often than it should be. Deck space and deadweight are commonly underutilized, leaving efficiencies on the table. This is not about pushing crews to “do more.” It is about improving how work is planned and sequenced so that the capacity already paid for is used more effectively. Better utilization reduces unnecessary trips, cuts standby, and improves fuel per task, all without major capital expenditure.

A third, and sometimes underestimated, factor is the human element. Sister vessels with similar specifications can deliver very different outcomes because planning, routines, and daily practice differ. In some cases, the variance is driven by how consistently basic processes are followed. In others, it is the result of how shore teams coordinate with crews, how readiness is confirmed, or how decisions are made under time pressure. Fleet-scale insight makes this visible, not to assign blame, but to show that performance is not only a technical issue. It is behavioral, and it requires routines that teams can adopt and sustain.

This is also why performance tends to drift when regular oversight pauses. When monitoring becomes intermittent, practices revert to local norms and the gains that were visible during a focused period start to fade. The answer is not heavier reporting. It is lighter, more regular review cycles that keep attention on the few indicators that matter and make it easy to act. In marine offshore, consistency beats complexity.

Idle time also has implications beyond cost. Extended standby in sensitive zones, including Dynamic Positioning (DP) activity within the 500m zone, increases safety risk for rig and vessel crew, fuel burn, and operational risk, which can run contrary to operator instructions. This type of scenario highlights the direct connection between predictability, fuel, and safety. Reducing avoidable standby is not only a decarbonization lever, but also a risk-management lever.

Another industry reality is the size of shore teams. Many shore-based teams support very large fleets, which is manageable, but it means tools must convert growing volumes of data into actionable guidance without adding workload. This is where digitalization succeeds or fails. If a solution creates more administrative burden, it will struggle. If it supports small teams with clear, practical direction and makes outcomes easier to verify, adoption accelerates.

Finally, with the proliferation of data collection tools, we’re seeing a rise in the importance of interoperability, where operators are increasingly focused on integrating performance insights with other reporting platforms and internal systems. API-based data sharing improves total visibility across operations, reduces duplicate entry, and helps ensure that operational reality and commercial follow-through are aligned. In practice, this matters because performance improvement increasingly intersects with contractual performance, invoicing, and ESG reporting expectations.

The lesson from 1,000 OSVs is not that the industry needs more information. It is that the industry needs better habits. The operators who turn scale into simple routines, focus on fuel for the work performed, idle and standby time, and predictable availability, and keep review cycles light and regular, will be the ones who hold on to improvements long after the initial push has passed.

Arnaud Dianoux is the founder and CEO of Opsealog.