Green Offshore Technology Alliance

Proposed JIPs built around real capability gaps.

Each scope starts from an engineering problem, identifies the capabilities needed to address it, and links the work to recognized engineering references where they apply.

These are forming collaboration proposals, not funded or formally constituted consortia unless that commitment is explicitly stated.

Start from a project decisionCapability libraryEngineering references
JIP-01Offshore CCUSSeeking Technical Partners

Offshore CCUS 4D Optical DAS & Microseismic MRV

Explore how permanent sensing can complement episodic marine seismic campaigns in offshore storage assurance.

Industry problem

Offshore CO₂ storage needs monitoring that can connect plume imaging, injection behaviour and geomechanical response across long operating periods. Repeat vessel surveys provide strong spatial imaging but are episodic and mobilization-intensive.

Why collaborate

A credible field pathway spans fiber hardware, marine installation, seismic interrogation, passive seismicity, reservoir interpretation and regulatory MRV. No single capability owner can validate the full evidence chain alone.

Target outcome

Define and field-test a traceable monitoring architecture that shows where permanent optical and passive-seismic sensing adds decision value alongside repeat seismic and operational surveillance.

Collaboration model

Proposed multi-party field-validation JIP with shared methods, benchmark datasets and jointly reviewed evidence criteria.

Technical workstreams

  1. 01Monitoring-objective and decision-gate definition for baseline, injection and assurance phases
  2. 02Seabed / wellbore fiber configuration and interrogation benchmarking
  3. 03Passive seismic event-detection and interpretation workflow
  4. 04Integration with repeat seismic, injection data and reservoir / geomechanical models
  5. 05MRV evidence packaging, provenance and escalation criteria

Capabilities sought

Proposed deliverables

  • • Proposed permanent-sensing reference architecture and field-test protocol
  • • Cross-method data-integration and interpretation workflow
  • • Monitoring decision matrix showing where each sensing method changes an operational or assurance decision
  • • Audit-ready evidence-package template with explicit provenance and limitations

Who should join

  • • Storage operators
  • • Fiber / interrogator technology providers
  • • Marine geophysical contractors
  • • Subsea EPC / cable specialists
  • • Seismology and geomechanics teams
  • • MRV / assurance specialists

Engineering references

ISO 27914:2026Carbon dioxide capture, transportation and storage — Geological storageISO · Edition 2, 2026-03DNV-RP-J203Geological storage of carbon dioxideDNV · 2019-09; amended 2021-09London Protocol — CCS frameworkCarbon dioxide sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations under the London ProtocolIMO · Current treaty framework and CCS amendments

If your field asset, method, dataset or engineering expertise addresses one of these workstreams, OceanHub wants to understand the fit before any consortium structure is implied.

JIP-02Floating Offshore WindScope Development

Floating Offshore Wind Foundation & Cyclic Soil Mechanics

Connect site characterization directly to anchor and mooring decisions under repeated cyclic loading.

Industry problem

Floating-wind anchor performance depends on soil behaviour under complex cyclic loading, yet geophysical interpretation, CPTu, laboratory testing and foundation analysis are often delivered as separate work packages.

Why collaborate

Developers, geotechnical contractors, laboratories, anchor designers and numerical-modelling teams need a common evidence chain so field measurements translate consistently into design parameters and installation decisions.

Target outcome

Create a reusable workflow linking regional ground models, in-situ testing, cyclic laboratory evidence and anchor design checks for floating-wind developments.

Collaboration model

Proposed shared-method and benchmark-data JIP focused on repeatable site-to-design handoffs.

Technical workstreams

  1. 01Ground-model uncertainty and geohazard framing for anchor / mooring layouts
  2. 02Deep CPTu and sampling strategy linked to design decisions
  3. 03Cyclic DSS / triaxial testing programme and parameter derivation
  4. 04Suction-caisson / anchor response modelling and sensitivity analysis
  5. 05Field-to-model traceability and design-parameter handoff

Capabilities sought

Proposed deliverables

  • • Decision-linked site-characterization workflow for floating-wind anchors
  • • Cyclic soil parameter derivation and uncertainty framework
  • • Anchor-design evidence matrix connecting field / lab data to engineering checks
  • • Reference dataset structure for cross-project comparison

Who should join

  • • Floating-wind developers
  • • Marine geotechnical contractors
  • • Geotechnical laboratories
  • • Anchor / mooring designers
  • • Engineering consultancies
  • • Research groups

Engineering references

DNV-ST-0119Floating wind turbinesDNV · 2025-12ISO 19901-4:2025Specific requirements for offshore structures — Part 4: Geotechnical design considerationsISO · Edition 3, 2025-02ISO 19901-8:2023Offshore structures — Part 8: Marine soil investigationsISO · Edition 2, 2023-09DNV-RP-E303Geotechnical design and installation of suction anchors in clayDNV · 2017-04; amended 2021-10

Contracted projects may additionally specify API or national foundation standards; verify the required edition in the project design basis.

If your field asset, method, dataset or engineering expertise addresses one of these workstreams, OceanHub wants to understand the fit before any consortium structure is implied.

JIP-03Marine Acoustics & EcologySeeking Co-sponsors

Ultra-Low Impact Marine Acoustics & Active Bubble Curtain Damping

Connect acoustic prediction, mitigation performance and real-time ecological observation into one consenting evidence chain.

Industry problem

High-energy offshore construction and survey activities face increasingly demanding underwater-noise and marine-fauna constraints, while propagation modelling, mitigation systems and PAM observations are often evaluated separately.

Why collaborate

The useful evidence chain crosses acoustic modelling, source characterization, mitigation engineering, hydrophone / PAM networks, ecological interpretation and consenting requirements.

Target outcome

Develop a field-verifiable workflow for predicting, measuring and documenting acoustic impact and mitigation performance during offshore operations.

Collaboration model

Proposed co-sponsored field-trial JIP combining engineering and ecological evidence rather than treating them as separate studies.

Technical workstreams

  1. 01Site-specific propagation-model inputs and uncertainty treatment
  2. 02Source characterization and mitigation-system test design
  3. 03Bubble-curtain / alternative mitigation field trials with before-after measurement
  4. 04PAM detection, review and operational trigger workflow
  5. 05Consenting-ready acoustic evidence and provenance package

Capabilities sought

Proposed deliverables

  • • Common field-trial protocol for mitigation performance
  • • Model-to-measurement calibration workflow with uncertainty reporting
  • • Real-time PAM operational decision workflow
  • • Consenting evidence template linking predictions, observations, mitigation and operational actions

Who should join

  • • Offshore developers / EPCIs
  • • Acoustic technology providers
  • • PAM operators
  • • Noise-mitigation suppliers
  • • Marine ecologists
  • • Regulatory / consenting specialists

Engineering references

ISO 18405:2017Underwater acoustics — TerminologyISO · Edition 1, 2017; confirmed 2022

Underwater-noise thresholds, protected-species procedures and mitigation requirements are jurisdiction- and consent-specific and must be resolved from the applicable regulator and project consent.

If your field asset, method, dataset or engineering expertise addresses one of these workstreams, OceanHub wants to understand the fit before any consortium structure is implied.

JIP-04Subsea InfrastructureConcept / Problem Framing

Subsea Green Energy Corridor & Autonomous USV Inspection

Use repeat autonomous observation to turn route change into actionable cable / pipeline integrity evidence.

Industry problem

Export cables, interconnectors and future low-carbon subsea corridors cross mobile seabeds where scour, burial change and free spans evolve between conventional inspection campaigns.

Why collaborate

Autonomous survey alone does not create an integrity decision. Survey operators, asset owners, geoscience teams and structural / cable engineers need shared change-detection and escalation rules.

Target outcome

Frame a repeatable low-footprint inspection workflow connecting autonomous survey, change detection and engineering screening for subsea energy corridors.

Collaboration model

Early-stage proposed JIP; first objective is to agree the shared problem statement, evidence thresholds and a realistic pilot scope.

Technical workstreams

  1. 01Inspection decision gates and minimum detectable-change requirements
  2. 02USV / autonomous survey repeatability and navigation-control design
  3. 034D bathymetric / seabed-change detection and QA/QC
  4. 04Free-span, scour, burial and route-risk screening
  5. 05Engineering escalation thresholds and evidence handoff

Capabilities sought

Proposed deliverables

  • • Autonomous repeat-survey reference workflow
  • • Change-detection QA/QC and minimum-detectable-change framework
  • • Engineering screening matrix for scour, burial and free-span change
  • • Decision-ready inspection evidence package for asset teams

Who should join

  • • Cable / pipeline owners
  • • USV operators
  • • Marine survey companies
  • • Cable installers / EPCIs
  • • Integrity engineering teams
  • • Sensor and autonomy technology providers

Engineering references

IHO S-44IHO Standards for Hydrographic SurveysIHO · Edition 6.2.0, 2024-10DNV-RP-F105Free spanning pipelinesDNV · 2025-12DNV-RP-F109On-bottom stability design of submarine pipelines, cables and umbilicalsDNV · 2021-05; amended 2025-09DNV-RP-F116Integrity management of submarine pipeline systemsDNV · 2021-12DNV-RP-0360Subsea power cables in shallow waterDNV · 2016-03; amended 2021-10

Survey class, cable-owner criteria and marine-operations requirements remain asset- and project-specific.

If your field asset, method, dataset or engineering expertise addresses one of these workstreams, OceanHub wants to understand the fit before any consortium structure is implied.