VIN, SP-3000 and ARCHIMEDE and is 



jointly funded by the French and American 

 governments to survey and conduct research 

 into the genesis and characteristics of this 

 most impressive undersea mountain range. 



It should be evident that the field of deep 

 submergence is quixotic and, as Mr. Horton 

 forecast some 6 years past, ". . . ivhat mar- 

 ket there was would experience energetic 

 competition with the weaker companies 

 falling by the wayside.'''' In 1968 it v^^ould 

 have taken the foresight of Cassandra to 

 prophesize Westinghouse, North American 

 Rockwell, General Dynamics, Grumman Aer- 

 ospace, Reynolds and General Motors as 

 "weaker" companies. But if participation in 

 submersible activities is the yardstick, then 

 that is precisely the case, for each of these 

 giant corporations has retired from active 

 participation. Albeit, Westinghouse main- 

 tains token representation with DS-2000. 



Interestingly, the stronger companies 

 turned out to be "backyard" builders who 

 offered simple, relatively inexpensive sub- 

 mersibles instead of the deep, sophisticated 

 and expensive variety. Two submersible 

 builders dominate today: Perry Submarine 

 Builders and International Hydrodynamics 

 Ltd. (HYCO). The Perry organization has 

 built 13 vehicles {PC3-X, PC-3A (1 & 2), PC- 

 SB, PLC-4, PLC-4B, PC5-C, PC-8, PC-9, 

 PC-15, PS-2, OPSUB, PC-14) and is in the 

 process of constructing 4 more. The majority 

 of Perry's business, however, resides in the 

 construction of diver delivery and support 

 systems, not submersibles. On the other 

 hand, HYCO remains strictly a submersible 

 builder and has completed seven to date 

 (PISCES I, II, III, IV, V, SDL-1 , AQUARIUS 

 I) with orders for six more (PISCES VI, VII, 

 VIII, AQUARIUS II, ARIES I & II) on the 

 ledger. 



Determining the number of operating sub- 

 mersibles is quite difficult owing to the spo- 

 radic nature of their use; some dive full time; 

 others, perhaps 1 or 2 months out of the 

 year. In any event, some 58 out of the more 

 than 100 submersibles built since FNRS-2 

 are operating. The status of individual vehi- 

 cles is given in Chapter 4; it is of interest to 

 note that most of the operational submers- 

 ibles are shallow ones, and dive to less than 

 2,000 feet. The deeper vehicles are largely 



government-supported vehicles of the United 

 States and France. 



Scientific diving is now a small part of 

 submersible activities; instead, engineering 

 tasks, such as pipeline and cable inspection, 

 are the dominant activities. And, at the mo- 

 ment, the submersible industry has focused 

 on the North Sea. 



Since discovery and development of the 

 North Sea oil in the late sixties and early 

 seventies, Vickers Oceanics Ltd. of Barrow- 

 in-Furness has been and is the major sup- 

 plier of submersible services in this area. In 

 a 1972 report, Goudge (46) shows a 1969 total 

 of 40 operating days for PISCES II growing 

 to a total of 500 operating days for three 

 submersibles (PISCES I & II and an uniden- 

 tified diver lock-out vehicle) in 1972. 



Two of the most obvious questions concern- 

 ing this resurgence in submersible activity is 

 why now and why the North Sea? Mr. G. S. 

 Henson of Vickers presented his answers in a 

 report at a Heriot-Watt University Seminar 

 in early December 1973. The North Sea can 

 be one of the most inhospitable areas in the 

 world and, according to Henson, its condi- 

 tions are characterized by: 



— Average sea states and extremes of 

 weather conditions significantly worse 

 than previously encountered in routine off- 

 shore operations. 



— Strong tidal currents and turbidity. 



— Greater water depths than previous oil 

 extracting workings; 650 feet at present 

 with oil-bearing potential extending to 

 depths of 975 feet to 2,000 feet for future 

 development. 



— Low water temperature. 



Within these conditions a diver quickly runs 

 out of breathing gas and strength and is 

 frequently cold and frightened. Additionally, 

 the diver stirs up a cloud of bottom sedi- 

 ments and is unable to wait for it to clear 

 because of his limited gas supply. From a 

 mechanical point of view, divers offer little 

 or no power at their elbows. 



Acknowledging the technical limitations of 

 remote submersible work tools, Henson lists 

 their advantages over the diver as being a 

 "shirt sleeve" environment, a reasonable 

 power supply and the ability to bottom for 

 several hours to wait until conditions clear. 



70 



