Extending the Life Of Submarine Cable Networks
Steve John Elaine Dawe, Stafford, Hibbard, David Ross Hibbard Vodafone, Group Consul6ng In absen6a HOW? WHY? CHAIR (“Done it & Using it”)
Larry Moskowitz, AT&T, HOW? (“Done it & Using it”)
Seymour Shapiro, Ex-‐SubCom. RELIABILITY
Stuart Barnes Xtera HOW? (“Supplied It”)
Raynald LeConte Orange MARINE (“Laid it”)
Bernard Logan Mertech SALVAGE
Keith Schofield Pioneer SubOpIc Working Group
Introductions
Elaine Stafford, The David Ross Group
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
Recycling Pre-Owned Cable Networks: Perspective on Recent Success Stories
2004-‐ Recycling Pre-‐Owned Systems & Shore Ends Proposed at SubOp@c: as a poten@al win-‐win means to: • •
Connect remote regions where new cables were unaffordable, and Keep supplier marine assets in service during market down-‐turn
Since 2006: • • • • •
Seven recycled networks have been installed and commissioned in the Pacific, Caribbean and Atlan@c Several of these extend between 1000-‐2000 km in length All are reliably providing service today for various global operators None have experienced any internal wet-‐system failure All were recycled, with teams of experts, using cables installed in the mid-‐90’s • • •
All used recycled repeaters, except the one network which was repeaterless Most used simply lightweight cable, but some also recycled shore ends and armored cable Some used new SLTEs and PFEs, while others recycled this equipment
Today: a proven, affordable alterna@ve for some low-‐capacity regional routes. The cost/benefit is very solu@on-‐specific. Elaine Stafford,
The David Ross Group
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
The Recycling “Imperative” Affordable Alterna@ve: Remote, low-‐popula@on island-‐na@ons remain dependent solely on satellite and would benefit from fiber-‐ if it was affordable Essen@al Op@on: Recycling can significantly reduce ini@al capital cost, making fiber an affordable and essen@al op@on for some regions Ample Capacity: Even with reduced capacity, s@ll can be abundant for skinny routes Reliable Performance: Life@me forecast for recycled cable networks can be many years, if terminal gear (and poten@ally also repeaters) are replaced, and warranted comparably to new networks Timely Availability: Project implementa@on @me similar to new systems Green Solu@on: cleans seabed; classic recycling; reduced CO2 emission -‐-‐ environmental bonanza, for as long as there remains suitable cable to recover Market & Finance Percep@on Problems: gradually being overcome and accepted by banks and boards (“Pre-‐Owned” vs. “Second-‐Hand”, and novel need not mean risky) John Hibbard,
Hibbard Consulting
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
Economics and Expertise The economics of recycling project are extremely sensi@ve to: • scope of recovery, • vessel rate and endurance, and • asset transfer fees. Any of these factors (or a combina@on thereof) can render recycling unviable. Other project variables make li`le difference vis-‐à-‐vis the economics of new vs. recycled.
Key to recycling success is: • • • •
close teamwork within and among the contrac@ng partners, coopera@ve route and marine engineering defining a low risk technical solu@on matching asset availability with route requirements, an experienced project engineering and management team, an appropriate risk and reward structure-‐ par@cularly between system integrator, marine contractor and system engineer func@ons.
Steve Dawe, Vodafone
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
Technical and Commercial Issues Success of a recycled system depends on good line design. This requires experienced vendors with deep knowledge of system impairments Availability of cable and repeater data of recycled system important to providing a good line design Working with experienced marine operator who has either done significant repairs or recovered systems in the past and knows the area where recovery will occur Cost benefit of recovery of cable and repeaters vs. new produc@on needs to be weighed. •
May not be able to recover armored cable as it is buried and may be underneath other cables so cheaper to produce new cable
•
Use of exis@ng shore sec@ons to avoid permidng and addi@onal costs
Local laws and fishermen rights to be respected if recycled system to be recovered in territorial and economic zones Larry Moskowitz, AT&T
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
Cable System Reliability Fiber Reliability: >> 25 years
• Hydrogen ageing and fiber breaks observed early in system life – residual life >> 25 years
Repeater Reliability/Life@me: > 25 years
• Housing (>> 25 years) and electro-‐op@cs > 25 years • Repeater replacement may introduce incremental reliability risk due to shipboard join@ng (moulding)
Cable Mechanical/Insula@on Integrity: Poten@ally >> 25 years
• Armored cable more robust than armorless, but more difficult to recover • Repeatered cable be`er protected (thicker insula@on) than repeaterless • Careful inspec@on during recovery to find & repair damage is cri@cally important; risk of latent damage must be managed • Matching recovered cable/fiber type and segment-‐lengths with new-‐ network required SLD requires expert engineering and management
Terminal Life@me: wear out managed by repair Seymour Shapiro,
past TE-SubCom CTO
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
System Design Perspective: Repeaters are the key Network transmission capability and network reliability are both largely determined by the repeaters. Replacing repeaters can improve both, but is not always warranted. Addi@onally, the network cost savings afforded thru recycling can be swayed by the decision of new vs. recycled repeaters, but is largely driven by recycled-‐cable purchase price and marine recovery expense Marine costs can be measurably greater with recycling
Illustrative Comparative Costs
Cable costs are likely meaningfully less with recycling
$40.0 $30.0
Repeater cost savings can vary considerably, depending on whether they are replaced (or not), perhaps to achieve greater network capacity
$20.0 $10.0 $-‐ New
Recyle w/Repeaters
Dry Plant
Recovered Wet Plant
New Cable
Marine-‐ Recovery
Marine-‐Install
Other
Recyle (New Repeaters)
Dry Plant Costs – small part of the equa@on and can be recycled (or not) with wet plant
New Repeaters
Stuart Barnes, Xtera
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
Illustrative payback model -Assumptions
The pressured CEO and Gov’t are de-‐stressed because a handful of 100Gs can last a lifeKme!
100
Recycled system Recycled & New Repeater
80
New System
60
40
20
0
-‐20
-‐40
YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 YEAR 11 YEAR 12 YEAR 13 YEAR 14 YEAR 15 YEAR 16 YEAR 17 YEAR 18 YEAR 19 YEAR 20 YEAR 21 YEAR 22 YEAR 23 YEAR 24 YEAR 25
ANNUAL PROFITABILITY (US$M)
Small PopulaKon & Capacity Demand 1000 km from hub
The Fat Controller is happy with the return, but even happier with the iniKal savings! Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
Repeater Reliability An Illustrative Example The least reliable element in a repeater is the pump laser The wear-‐out mechanism for lasers follows a lognormal distribu@on, which exhibits an increasing failure rate with @me. For a somewhat typical laser with failure rate 85 FITs over 25 years, it is reasonable extrapolate that for 37 years (50% longer) to: • • •
128 FITs per pump; 5.3 FITS per redundant pump pair (vs. 1.6 FITS); 27.4 FITS per 2-‐pr repeater (vs. 20 FITS);
For a 3000-‐km, 30-‐repeater system, this results in: • •
30 X 27.4 = 822 FITs. 0.27 ship repairs over 37 years. Repeater reliability for a recycled regional network, recycled aUer 10-‐15 years of operaIon, is well within acceptable system-‐design requirements.
Stuart Barnes, Xtera
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
System Power Budgets: Recycling with Ample Transmission Margin Recycled System Power Budgets: Are technically the same as for a new build, but: • •
Margin mainly for repairs, as ageing should be small Wet-‐plant performance should be well-‐known, and require less for “unknowns”
Oten start with extra/excess opera@ng margin • •
Older systems had very conserva@ve design and implementa@on, resul@ng in more margin than specified in the original requirements Target system may be shorter / capacity modest
Typically are based on wet-‐plant performance measurements • • • •
Needed if data is not available – some@mes for “Legal” reasons Typically on one pair only – are the others the same? Takes @me, par@cularly for several poten@al suppliers to test There are alterna@ves
May demonstrate value of poten@ally replacing old repeaters with new • • •
More bandwidth, less noise ⇨ more capacity, longer poten@al life. A`ainable capacity is likely: greatest with a new system, least without replacing repeaters, and in-‐between if repeaters are replaced Adds a li`le cost and @me, but needs to be examined in the cost/benefit balance Depends on several factors, not all technical, and needs to be assessed case-‐by-‐case
Stuart Barnes, Xtera
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
Proven Marine Experience FT-‐Marine Experience : two large projects for which the customer owned the system to be recovered and decided to redeploy the cable and repeaters. This was solving the ownership transfer of assets. Marine Scope: Op@mizing the cost of marine ops. • The projects were made on board CS René Descartes with her three tanks. • The cable and the repeaters were tested during the recovery phase. • The new system was constructed on board while recovering.
Recovered Cable Quality: Minimal cable damage occurred during recovery which required repair before relaying. No faults were experienced during or ater lay. Excess Recovered Repeaters: The number of repeaters recovered enabled some to be allocated to the maintenance reserve Splicing in New Repeaters On Board?: enabled by UJ Cable/Route Engineering: The issue of the availability and engineering of the armored cable into the new route is cri@cal Other Advantages: in one of our project, the reuse of the landing sta@ons, that of course simplified dras@cally the permits issue
Raynald LeConte, Orange (FT-Marine)
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
When Recycling Uneconomical, SALVAGE
Benefits of Recovery:
• Removes Con@nuous Third Party risks and Permidng Payments • Frees up sea floor route for new cables • Recycling of Cable Materials: poly, steel, copper, Environmental Saving • Recovery of Repeaters: Hazardous Material Handling and recycling metals
Challenges in Recovery: • Cable Crossing Data • Keeping Costs Down • Seeking Original Owners Agreement
Bernard Logan, Mertech Marine
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
Recycling 8000 km cable saves up to 286,000 tons of CO2 emissions New products Virgin input material
Recycled products
HDPE Plastic LDPE Plastic
1765 tons
68-136 GJ/ ton
20-42 tons CO2/ ton
3531 tons
68-136 GJ/ ton
20-42 tons CO2 /ton
Copper
2528 tons
44-83 GJ / ton
14-26 tons CO2 / ton
Steel
2336 tons
30-39 GJ /ton
9-12 tons CO2 /ton
TOTAL
10,160 tons
580K- 960K GJ
175,000 – 295,000 tons CO2
Recovery at sea
116 tons CO2
Dismantling
Undersea cable
166,000-‐286, 000 tons CO2 net saving
4,377 tons CO2
Transport
PelleKsing
148 tons CO2 2,860 tons CO2
Transport to client TOTAL
• Plastic pellets • Copper chips • Steel cable
766 tons CO2
• Plastic pellets • Copper chips • Steel cable
8,267 tons CO2
Note: 1) Values are rounded. Values differ between sources due to different methods of produc@on and different means of energy genera@on 2) A factor of 1.08 kg CO2 per kWh has been used based on energy produc@on in South Africa as per Smart Living Handbook 3) 15% has been subtracted from the values given in the sources in order to compare like with like, since the values in the sources are for new final products, whereas the values calculated for recycled material are for pellets, chips and cable (i.e. one stage before final product) Sources: Smart Living Handbook (City of Cape Town, South Africa, 2007, www.capetown.gov.za), www.ecofx.org, www.wikipedia.com
Bernard Logan, Mertech Marine
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
SubOptic Working Group Extending Working Life of Submarine Systems
A ‘Good News’ story for the industry Voluntary Cross-‐industry Collabora@on, 12+ involved already – you can help define the issues to resolve Workstreams on Technical, Opera@onal, Commercial, Financial, Legal & Regulatory Covers extending system life and recovery/re-‐lay SubOp@c 2016 Workshop to present the findings Much work to do – volunteer where you can help (see Keith Schofield ater this)
Keith Schoefield, Pioneer
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
Extending the Life Of Submarine Cable Networks
Steve John Elaine Dawe, Stafford, Hibbard, David Ross Hibbard Vodafone, Group Consul6ng In absen6a
Larry Moskowitz, AT&T,
Seymour Shapiro, Ex-‐SubCom.
Stuart Barnes Xtera
Raynald LeConte Orange
Bernard Logan Mertech
Keith Schofield Pioneer
Questions ? Thank You!
Elaine Stafford, The David Ross Group
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
BACKUP
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
A worked example or two…. Proof tes@ng:
• 100kV for 9 days (equivalent to 10kV constant voltage for 25 years) • Cable life@me 𝑡∝𝑉↑−𝑛 • Assume ultra-‐conserva@ve power law exponent n = 3
Original system parameters:
• System length 3500km • System voltage 7kV • Opera@onal life to date 10 years
Re-‐laid system parameters:
• System length 1500km • System Voltage 3kV • Es@mated remaining life@me 800 years
Stuart Barnes, Xtera
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15
System Power Budgets: Recycling with Ample Transmission Margin Op@cal power budgets for both new & recycled systems must be engineered with margin to allow for con@nued aging, repairs and transmission impairments Most recycled systems do not change the original network repeater spacing Most recycled systems are oten shorter than and require less capacity than their original network. Thus, original repeater spacing and power levels are inherently conserva@ve rela@ve to requirements for their new home and offer ample margin Nonetheless, original network performance data is important to collect, analyse, understand, and model in a new network power budget for the recycled network. Recycled networks’ power budgets may not be “op@mized” in the same way a new system would be, to reduce repeater count, but they will be engineered with more than ample margin for the recycled network’s new life@me Stuart Barnes, Xtera
Emerging SubSea Networks-‐ the world’s expanding treasure
Proud Sponsor of PTC’15