Offshore operations often come with unexpected challenges, sometimes leading to complications that ripple across entire projects. Let me share a recent example:
A tender required a vessel for a 2-year contract, but the winning vessel, foreign-flagged, obtained a 1-year CAA under the anticipated circularization process. After six months, a new circularization blocked the foreign vessel for the second year of the contract. Although the blocking vessels were available, their limitations in Fire Fighting capabilities and crew specialization caused significant disruptions to the project, including IBAMA licensing delays and an interruption to the drilling operation.
This situation raises critical concerns:
1. Contracts planned for longer periods can face roadblocks, causing both operational and cost uncertainties.
2. While Brazilian-flagged vessels are given preference, the reality is that not all are equipped to meet the needs of the project without compromises.
The Challenge: It’s essential to uphold national interests and the law, but how do we balance this with the practical demands of offshore operations?
The Question: Could a longer CAA period help bring clarity and stability from the outset? Or should vessel characteristics considered “deal breakers” be reevaluated to avoid such situations in the future? What role should ANTAQ play in seeking expert, independent input during critical circularization decisions?
What do you think? How can we improve planning and reduce uncertainty?
It happens – Offshore Series: The Tender Dilemma!
