THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 6, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 8:01 a.m. [ET], to examine and report on Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore petroleum industry; and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Joan Kingston (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone.
Before we begin, I’d like to ask all the senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please ensure to keep your earpiece away from the microphones at all times. Don’t touch the microphone. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. Your earpieces should remain either on your ear or on the designated sticker at each seat. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I’d like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin Nation.
I’m Joan Kingston, a senator from New Brunswick and chair of the Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I’d like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner, deputy chair of the committee, from Quebec.
Senator Aucoin: Good morning. Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, a senator from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10, Manitoba region.
Senator Fridhandler: Daryl Fridhandler, Alberta.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Galvez: Hello. Welcome. Rosa Galvez, Quebec.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
I’d like to welcome here today the people that are listening online.
Pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on October 8, we’re pursuing our study on Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore petroleum industry.
We’re pleased to welcome today, on our first panel, from Memorial University of Newfoundland, Kristopher Drodge, the head of the School of Maritime Studies, Fisheries and Marine Institute.
Mr. Drodge, welcome, and thank you for being here. We appreciate your presence this morning. You’ll have five minutes to make your opening remarks, after which we’ll move on to a question and answer session.
Kristopher Drodge, Head, School of Maritime Studies, Fisheries and Marine Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland: Thank you to the committee for allowing me to address you here today.
I am currently the Head of the School of Maritime Studies at the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland, located in St. John’s. We stand on the traditional territories of diverse Indigenous peoples. My colleagues and I respectfully acknowledge the deep histories and cultures of the Beothuk, Mi’kmaq, Innu and Inuit communities across our province.
By way of background, I am a graduate of the Marine Institute and Memorial University, specializing in nautical science and maritime studies. My career has largely centred around offshore operations in Newfoundland, where I served as both captain and offshore installation manager on board various vessels and semi-submersibles in the offshore.
In my present role, I lead a school devoted to preparing professionals for careers in the maritime and ocean sectors and in the continued proficiency of skills and competencies required for those roles once they actually enter the maritime workforce. Today, though, I am here to speak specifically about our engagement with the offshore oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The petroleum sector has been a long-standing partner in supporting post-secondary education and professional development within the Marine Institute and Memorial University in general over the years. Their contributions, seen in capital-investment research initiatives tied to benefit agreements, work placements, scholarships and student engagement among other things have certainly helped strengthen our programs and student opportunities.
In the early days of the industry, we established the Centre for Marine Simulation and the Centre for Offshore Safety and Survival, both direct responses to the Ocean Ranger tragedy in 1982. This disaster exposed critical gaps in safety and operational training, prompting the creation of a new educational capacity in Newfoundland and Labrador and, in essence, in Canada. This work was enabled by the $300-million Offshore Development Fund set up through the Atlantic Accord by the federal and provincial governments in 1985, which provided significant support for the Marine Institute, which was then independent of Memorial University, to become a leading hub for offshore oil and gas education, training and research.
Today, we continue to deliver the highest quality training for the offshore industry in Canada. Our institution’s mandate in Newfoundland and Labrador is clear. We have to maintain leadership in regulatory-based training to further train and educate students and industry workforces while contributing to the rural economic development of our province. Without this vital industry-driven regulatory framework, our programming and industry standards would be left to informal minimums and would certainly lack proper accountability.
Over time, our collaboration with regulatory bodies and the Training and Qualifications Committee has helped develop and uphold a robust, world-class code of practice, overseen by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator, or C-NLOER, ensuring rigorous competency and skills verification for offshore workers. The effectiveness is reflected in Newfoundland and Labrador’s reputation as one of the safest offshore jurisdictions globally despite operating in some of the most demanding and harshest environments in the world.
Delivering high-fidelity training and education, particularly in simulation, requires substantial investment not only in initial infrastructure and capital investment but also in ongoing maintenance, repair and technological upgrades. Our responsibility is to keep these innovative resources available and accessible and up to national and global expectations, supporting both current students and future workforce leaders in addition to the research and development, which is key to the university.
In alignment with colleagues at the C-NLOER and looking at recent discussions here at the standing committee, we replicate the commitment to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador as it extents to collaborating with those regulators, government, industry partners, advisory boards and to the Indigenous communities that we serve. Not only is this collective approach important to the advancing offshore and maritime workforce development, but it is also essential.
Importantly, the Marine Institute provides critical resources not only to the oil and gas industry but also to the broader maritime sector and, in some cases, to national defence and resilience initiatives. Many of our technologies and simulators serve multiple industries, enabling cross-sector training and education thanks to shared investment and support.
I want to thank you again for your interest in the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area. I welcome your questions and look forward to our discussion.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Drodge.
We’ll begin with questions. It will be five minutes back and forth for each senator that has questions. There may be a time for a second round, but we’ll start with the first round.
Senator Galvez: Good morning, Captain Drodge.
A few years ago, I was invited by the Canadian Navy to visit the Arctic with the late Commander Michael Eelhart of the HMCS Ville de Québec. It was an incredible, fantastic trip where, every day, I talked to him about the struggles of climate change imposed in erosion and in mobility of Indigenous People for sovereignty reasons over there.
I read that you joined the Fisheries and Marine Institute from the Net Zero Project, where you:
. . . led subject matter experts in policy/regulation, technical, strategic partnerships and economics towards net zero emission reduction in Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore energy industry.
Is it possible for offshore oil and gas to achieve net zero? If yes, how? If yes, when? And if not, why not?
Mr. Drodge: Thank you for the question.
I was the project manager of that Net Zero Project which was a collaboration between various associations in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in the offshore and environmental sectors. As part of that project, we looked at the pathways for emission reduction in the offshore specifically. The net zero initiatives and goals for 2050 were obviously on the table as part of those pathway projects where we were involved.
These types of goals are achievable, but they are also very challenging. It requires commitment from not only government and industry but also from the populations that we serve. A lot of these pathways require quite high capital expenditures. To initiate them in their current state, which is fairly low on the technology readiness level, or TRL, where they are, in some cases, conceptual, is very challenging at this moment. To say it’s impossible, I would say no, but it’s not a cookie-cutter solution, and it will not be just one pathway. Through the couple of years that we did look at these different types of pathways, we found that a multitude of options will be available. A stackable type of solution will be possible for producers and operators alike to look at their goals towards net zero in 2050, whether that be carbon capture or carbon credits or electrification or using renewable fuels and hybrid technologies. A fairly large list of options exists, but that will be up to the operators to determine their own industry goals.
Senator Galvez: I’m sure you’re familiar with the fact that the Canadian Navy fleet was behind in construction of the new fleet. We’re very much behind. Only recently were new contracts given to construct the icebreakers and the fleet that we need to monitor our vast territory, from ocean to ocean to ocean.
What if something happens again, such as the 2018 Cenovus Energy incident? In 2024, they were fined $2.5 million related to the 2018 spill in the South White Rose field that released 250,000 litres of oil. At the pace at which we are modernizing our fleet, are we prepared for another accident — not just a major accident but even a medium-sized accident?
Mr. Drodge: If I understand your question correctly on preparedness around spills offshore and the technology we use, through the engineering aspects and the design aspects that we currently employ and the new and currently installed projects, looking at the risk and looking at preventative controls and barriers which the operators, producers and contractors assess alike, I think that there is a very high level of preparedness and emergency awareness and a very low risk tolerance in Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore when it comes to discharges, whether authorized or unauthorized. It is, in my opinion, the safest offshore jurisdiction in the world. I have been in other jurisdictions. The precautions that are taken by offshore operators are above and beyond what you would see elsewhere in the global.
Senator Arnot: Good morning, Captain Drodge. I have two questions. If you can’t answer these questions in five minutes, I would like you to put the answers in writing, if you would, please.
Captain Drodge, do you believe the current federal policy is supporting transition training investments, or are institutions like the Marine Institute left to self-fund the shift from oil to clean-energy operations?
Second, how is the Marine Institute incorporating Indigenous and community perspectives into marine safety and offshore education?
Mr. Drodge: Thank you for your questions, senator.
Over the years, whether it be a Conservative or a Liberal government, the federal government and our provincial governments have been quite supportive of investing in post-secondary education, particularly around the enhancement of maritime industry professionals and, by relation, towards the offshore.
Is it enough? We can always want more. Is it sustainable? I can’t really answer that question either, but as I mentioned in my opening remarks, I do know that investment is critical. It is consistently needed to ensure that technology is kept up to date. Investment is always required. Oftentimes, you’ll find that post-secondary institutions throughout the country, not just Memorial University and not just our Maritime Institute, because there are other institutes throughout the country — often do not have those types of funds available within them to invest in those capital expenditures.
To answer your question, yes, the initiative and the supports have been there, and they are welcomed at all times. We have very good partners within the government and in previous governments and in future governments, I’m sure, because they recognize the essentialness of our training, but there will always be a need to recognize that good investment for upgrading and for maintenance itself, is essential to ensure that we as a country, not just the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, maintain the most up-to-date and world-class technology available.
On the second question around how we as an institute engage with the Indigenous communities, the Marine Institute has been in the North, for example, for decades. We pride ourselves on that and on our relationships with the organizations up there, in particular the Nunavut Arctic College and the Nunavut Fisheries and Marine Training Consortium. We’ve trained almost 6,000 Arctic students since 2011, so only in the past 14 or 15 years. Six thousand students is a commendable amount, and that’s mainly through our community-based education programs where we listen and develop and deliver training in those communities.
Part of our mandate as an institute is to collaborate with Indigenous communities within our province and outside our province as well. We have a very good relationship with the Miawpukek First Nation in Conne River. Miawpukek also operates an offshore supply company, Miawpukek Horizon, with which we are currently always engaged in the development of maritime skills and workforce, succession planning and training and research. We’re very proud of that. We also work on the west coast of the island with the Qalipu First Nation. They have a very strong population in the province. I don’t know of any numbers that are currently in the workforce in the offshore, but I’m pretty sure, knowing that we have many people from the west coast of the island working offshore, some of them are Qalipu First Nation members, as well.
I do believe we have a very good understanding, but it always requires that we listen to those communities, engage on a consistent basis and look for opportunities with them as we develop not only the maritime industry workforce, which is primarily their goals — and in fisheries — but also as it portrays to the offshore industries that we serve.
Senator Lewis: One thing that has remained constant — you spoke about the disaster in the 1980s — is the weather. It’s something, I suspect, that you guys are constantly trying to mitigate. Have you found the forecasting and forecasting models to have improved much over the years?
Mr. Drodge: The answer to that is yes. I started in the offshore as a cadet in 1998 on board a shuttle tanker. Over the past 30 years, we’ve seen tremendous changes and improvements in the technologies that serve the offshore oil and gas industry, and the petroleum industry in general.
When it comes to forecasting, we started off with onboard weather forecasters like us as professional mariners, looking at current conditions, isometric charts and WeatherFax at that time to where we have now where, even on your phones, you have applications that are significantly more advanced than what you would have seen in the market 10 years ago.
This week, we’re seeing hurricane-force winds hit the province and offshore. Those were seen and identified a week in advance. Precautions can be taken and operations can be safely controlled, offshore and onshore; and personnel and the environment are protected, as they should be, by the controls that are put in place to put these operations into standby mode during such weather conditions.
Senator Lewis: Is there a mix of private and public sources for modelling? Same with international. Do they rely on both, or do you need to ensure that the Canadian forecasting and weather services are properly funded going forward?
Mr. Drodge: In my experience, each country’s operator will have their own contracted weather service. They do collaborate among each other to share weather information. There is real-time data. The Marine Institute is actually part of that, as well, as is our School of Ocean Technology. We actually build and maintain ocean data acquisition systems, ODAS, buoys that are deployed offshore in Newfoundland and off the coast across Canada, actually. Those types of systems give us real data, and those are available to the public through the internet. Outside of that, there are also more public-private weather sources that are also utilized.
When it comes to forecasting for the offshore, from my experience operating, you take what you can get. You analyze it and you make your decisions based upon all the information provided, whether that be through Environment Canada, your private contractors who are employed or through public sources like your applications that are available through subscriptions. All of those are good data, and you have to take it, assess it, look at the risk and determine decisions based upon your procedures that are approved.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Captain Drodge, for appearing.
I think it’s safe to say you’re the first OIM that has ever appeared before a Senate committee. When you were giving your opening remarks, you mentioned you were a captain and an offshore installation manager. I know what that is, but I suspect the committee members don’t know what an offshore installation manager does, how important the job is and what kinds of things you do, not just on a daily basis but in the life cycle of the offshore. Could you talk a little bit about that, please?
Mr. Drodge: Again, in my previous life, I was an offshore installation manager, OIM for short, offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. I worked on semi-submersibles, mostly. A semi-submersible is a term that refers to a column-stabilized unit. If you’re familiar with the image of the Ocean Ranger, that was a semi-submersible. They’re harsh-environment drilling installations that are located throughout the world but mostly in the northern hemisphere due to the harsh environments. It’s what we have traditionally used in Newfoundland and Labrador because of those harsh environments and their high level of stability.
The position of OIM is similar to what you would associate with a captain’s role. It is the ultimate authority onboard. Even though the installation is contracted by an operator or a producer, the ultimate responsibility lies with the OIM. They’re the ones in charge of the personnel onboard and everything from navigation and engineering to drilling, catering and the contractors involved. It is a small city, in some cases. The POB, or the persons on board or the population on board, can vary from 120 to 300-plus. That’s not atypical of what we see in today’s industry. You’ll see it in today’s offshore as well, including on the gravity-based platforms of Hibernia, Hebron and the West White Rose platform when it becomes operational. It’s a very important role. It’s a role of accountability, and it’s a role that does assess risk on a daily basis.
Weather is a very high-risk scenario, particularly in the North Atlantic, not just in hurricane season but in the winter where they don’t have any names. They are very intense operations. However, with the design of the installations, the procedures and the policies in place, the skill sets and the competency levels and the professionalism of the crews onboard, which are, more often than not, Canadian and from Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a very safe operation. We’ve weathered some very severe storms over the years offshore. In some cases, we’ve had to take installations off location, which is quite normal. It is a hard decision to make, but those decisions need to be made based upon the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
The folks in those OIM positions do take them on with great responsibility. I’m proud to say that, over the years, the Marine Institute — to tie it back to my current role — has trained many of these offshore professionals: OIMs, masters, captains and the crews that serve them.
You’ll find that a lot of the offshore drilling installations around the globe have some connection to our province and our training facilities. We did have the first ballast-control simulator built as a conceptual idea back in the 1980s in response to the Ocean Ranger. It’s a full-motion ballast-control simulator where we do stability training for the officers and the OIMs of all these installations so they can be put through scenarios that you would never want to see offshore and that you would never want to put into even a training scenario offshore. We’ve been doing that use of simulation for the last 35 years or so. It’s great to be part of that, and it’s great to know that the expertise that we’ve generated through the MI and MON has not only been transcribed to the thresholds offshore in our province but also globally.
Senator Fridhandler: I am interested to hear more about the history of the institute and the impact that the development of offshore oil and gas has had on the course of the institute. I assume it was more focused on fisheries earlier on and that kind of training, but it has transitioned. And then a little bit about the interchangeability and diversity of the people coming out of the institute?
Mr. Drodge: Thank you, senator. That is a great question, because it is something that we do a lot of. We do a lot of tours at the Marine Institute because it is one of those gems of the city and the country that not many people realize is there.
You are right. At the beginning of the Marine Institute in the 1960s, it was primarily based around the fishing industry, a bit of the merchant marine, engineering and naval architecture around shipbuilding. As we progressed over the years and became a part of Memorial University and changed campuses, our mandate became clearer, more for the ocean sector.
To further develop and encourage the economic development in rural Newfoundland, we diversified and encouraged growth in many of our programs, particularly in the nautical science and marine engineering, naval architecture and systems design. Those latter two are core programs within Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy, but also within the offshore. When they were first used, they were around the shipbuilding/fishing industry, and then there was a transition where they were primarily used in the offshore oil and gas industry.
You will find many companies in offshore design, in the United States in particular, are graduates of the Marine Institute. Senior leadership of classification societies like DNB and ABS have their roots at the Marine Institute and Memorial University. That is one example.
The School of Ocean Technology is an example of how the oil and gas industry has helped that school. We have an ROV program and an ocean mapping program. In particular in ROV, we see significant support from the oil and gas and offshore industry towards our MATE ROV Competition, which is an international competition for ROV operators and high school students in particular, but it also involves university students who compete on a national and international level. Memorial University and some of the schools in the province have placed in the top three and in some cases won international competitions in ROV operations. That probably would not be possible without the support of the oil and gas industry. That is another example of how that has spread into the programs we have from one industry.
Certainly you can also see it echoed in the investment, in our capital. I asked one of our centres to see if they could put together how much was invested over the years. Our Centre for Marine Simulation alone, since its interception, has had roughly about $25 million capital investment in our simulators which is, when you think about it, quite substantial considering a lot of that money was spent back in the 1980s and 1990s. In today’s dollars, you could almost double or triple that. It is for dynamic positioning to process control and offshore operations which, again, are transferable. They are dual purpose. We often do training for the Coast Guard through Polar Code ice management and ice navigation, which we’re world-renowned for. We were the ones who led the Polar Code IMO development. This is one of those things we are proud of delivering. Using the similarities we have creates the most immersive training you will find on the planet. I am not afraid to say that. It is not just a flag-bearing comment. It is the most advanced simulation technology in the world. It is something to be proud of. Again, that type of training and those types of transferable skills are going into other industries such as the merchant commercial fleets but also in defence, surveillance and in the Coast Guard. They came from investments from the oil and gas industry. It is important. It certainly will drive what we do. We are always looking for different opportunities. We recognize that importance. We acknowledge that support they’ve given over the years.
Senator Fridhandler: As a followup, if you could touch on it, could you tell us about the simulator facilities at the institute? Hopefully, some of us will get to see them and visit with you, but give us a description of the breadth of the facilities there.
Mr. Drodge: If you have seen pictures of the Marine Institute online, you have probably seen a picture of the big bridge. That is our full mission simulator. That was the first one. It was and is still currently the largest, most advanced bridge simulator in the world. If any of you have been privileged to go to Esquimalt to the training facility the navy has, they have a similar one where it is a 360-degree projection screen and a bridge. This one is much bigger, but it is the same premise.
This one was first installed at the Marine Institute to support the offshore tanker operations that were going to be starting with the Hibernia platform, the production that would come from that and transshipment of crude oil to market. At that time, Newfoundland and Labrador was at the cusp of the offshore industry. There was a thought that Newfoundlanders and Canadians did not have the expertise to do the job. It was felt that we can bring in other nationalities to operate these vessels, but we and our Mariners knew that we could do it. One of the things industries and government helped to support was the installation of that simulator.
That has grown over the years. We have had the offshore operation simulator, which I touched on, used primarily for Polar Code, to our dynamic positioning simulators, to the ballast control simulator, and also to other simulators which are in the ocean technology areas. We have a suite of ROV simulators which can be used for the offshore but also other industries such as wind or any subsea industry you can think of. Within those simulators, we can create models and digital twins that rival any other technology or institute in the world. The capacity we have at the Marine Institute is quite impressive when it comes to simulators.
I do hope you can visit. One of our facilities at the launch, which is a facility in Holyrood, Newfoundland, we have created a digital twin of that subsea bay which includes subsea infrastructure that is installed, physically, by the offshore operators to mimic an offshore field for training purposes. But we have also created a digital twin of that entirety within the simulators so we can create a very realistic environments for our students and industry partners. It is growing into where we are beginning studies and research into remote operations, which is becoming more prevalent in not only the offshore but in other industries as well.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Based on your comments and those of Mr. Veitch, you seem to be on the cutting edge of technology and all education aimed at making this industry as safe as possible.
I would like to hear your opinion on an issue that may be outside your area of expertise. Let us take the example of an oil spill like the one that occurred on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, in the Gulf of Mexico, where 1,700 kilometres of coastline burned. We know it cost over $10 billion to clean up the coastline. The American government also had to set up a $20 billion fund to compensate tourism infrastructure and those who were affected along the coasts. That may not be the case if another deposit were to be developed in Newfoundland.
My question is about the $359-million fund that was set aside in 2023. Would that be enough in the event of a spill? That cannot be predicted. Would companies go bankrupt or not have the funds needed to compensate people? I would like to hear your thoughts on the fund of $350 million that have been set aside. Is that enough? What do you have to say about that?
[English]
Mr. Drodge: Thank you for your question, Senator Aucoin.
I do not know how much detail I am going to be able to provide on that. It is not in my purview as to the financial stability of companies or, in the event of an oil spill or response, how they would finance, fund or provide capital toward that or the future for the population of the province or the nation. What I can touch on is how, from a risk perspective, we try to avoid these types of events and, if they do happen, how they are mitigated. That will hopefully have an effect on the cost. We can help drive down the cost if such an event happened.
You have to bear with me when you think of this, but if you think of a bow tie, on one side, you have your preventive measures, and on the other side, you have your mitigating measures, controls and barriers that help prevent consequences from happening. In the middle, there is an actual consequence and what you were speaking about, Senator Aucoin, an oil spill.
On this side, you have mitigating controls where you have the response, those things that try to minimize the effects of that event. Our big focus is on the other side, around the preventive measures, and this side, this is the worst-case scenario or preventive. We prepare for this through capital investment and education.
On the preventive side, there are three types of controls. They can be people, there can be process, and there can be plant or equipment. As an industry, we have become, particularly in the offshore industry, world leaders in risk management mainly because of incidents like Macondo and the case studies that have come out of that. There was a great case study called “Disastrous Decisions” published shortly after that incident which talks about this major hazard risk assessment.
I am sure you have all heard of the term the Swiss cheese effect. On this side of the bow tie with all of those preventative measures, that is what that is. That is the Swiss cheese. If you have different controls or barriers fail and different consequences happen, those are the holes of the Swiss cheese that line up. The more that you can control, the more that you can strengthen those barriers. That is what we can do as an industry and an education institution.
At the Marine Institute, a lot of our focus is on people and process. A lot of our research and development is on equipment and plant —
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I am sorry, but I have to interrupt you, because my question is simpler than that. Do you think the $350-million fund is enough for the future? I understand your point about all the factors, the industry, research and safety factors. However, I would like to know whether you think the fund that was created, and which is a good initiative, is sufficient. I understand that this is not your area of expertise. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
[English]
Mr. Drodge: Having the commitment itself and knowing it is a substantial amount, I would not say it is sufficient but I would say it is positive. Knowing how some of the operators who are involved in Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore operate and how they understand harsh environments and their reputations and expertise around the world, I am confident that should an event happen offshore in Newfoundland, there will be sufficient response to address it.
The operators offshore are not mom-and-pop operations. These are world-leading companies and operations that have extensive experience not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but also in other harsh environments like the North Sea. That’s not to say that improvements and constant vigilance and accountability isn’t necessary, because it is, but knowing their reputation and knowing what we see, I have confidence in them. However, I cannot say if a specific amount is sufficient.
Senator McCallum: Welcome, Captain Drodge.
My question is about the committee’s study on industry regulation, including health and safety, environmental stewardship, impacts on marine ecosystems, Indigenous traditional fisheries resource management and industrial benefits.
You have spoken about the Ocean Ranger tragedy in 1982, and you have spoken about many of the strengths and successes you have had. Are there any successes you witnessed that you have not spoken about? What areas require attention? What areas are beyond your influence and need attention from others?
I know you have spoken about this in answering other questions. When you look at the students, many of them are worried about jobs after graduation. You said that some of the work they do is transferable to other sectors. Can you speak about that as well?
Mr. Drodge: Certainly. Thank you, Senator McCallum.
One of the areas I have not spoken about yet comes from the industrial-benefit piece we get from the offshore oil and gas industry, and it is around human factors. We have started a human factors network at the Marine Institute. This is similar to what is found in Norway. This is primarily funded at this point by the offshore operators. This is an industry-wide initiative. It is a platform for stakeholders who have an interest in safety-critical operations with human factors and an ergonomic lens.
At the Marine Institute, we are trying to advance these technologies. We have a doctorate program in this field led by Dr. Steve Mallam. It is one of these fields that does require development. It is not a new process. The human factor and situational awareness pieces of how operators engage with technology and control systems have always been known. However, as technologies develop and we become more advanced in technologies like AI, remote operations, display units and the continuance of putting more technology into that human interface area, more studies and research will be needed as to how humans interact with those, asking what improvements we can make to ensure that safe operations continue. That is what we do now as part of that industrial benefit, and it’s what Human Factors in Control, HFC, is doing. That is one. I think it has great promise, not only for Newfoundland but Canada, as leading that, globally.
Going to your third point around the transference of trained personnel to other industries, we do have a shortage of mariners in this country. There have been some good reports coming out as of late regarding what that capacity looks like over the next decade, and it is somewhere in the range of 30,000 or 40,000 vacancies, retirements or transfers within the entire maritime industry. That is not just offshore or merchant but onshore, shipyards and all through the connecting supply chain. Recruitment and retention are important to us as a training institute and university. They are two areas, across the country, not just at the Marine Institute, that need support. That support needs to come from industry and government. It is recognized, and it is not being ignored.
As we start looking at the country from within in terms of the way we regulate and train our mariners, we have to look at opportunities to improve regulations and the ways we create the pathways toward success so that a mariner who comes out of the Marine Institute or any other institute in Canada is set up such that they are not going to face barriers that, with reflection, could have been taken away at an earlier time. That includes making the certification and examination of seafarers more efficient in our country through working with Transport Canada. That would be something that would require additional work.
These are the same mariners — the same professionals — who work in the offshore industry, whether they be on supply vessels, seismic vessels, the drilling installations or the FPSOs, Floating Production Storage and Offloading units, the storage or production platforms that we see. These are the same individuals. They are transferable into other industries, but, as we have seen, the offshore industry is a very enticing industry for a lot of mariners. We do see mariners transfer from industry to industry, whether that be on the Great Lakes, internationally or on the West Coast from time to time.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The question that I am going to ask you has been asked in other ways, but I will be a bit more specific. Are the current safety protocols sufficient to deal with more intense storms and the melting sea ice in the North Atlantic? You told us that you consider the current industry off the coast of Newfoundland to be the safest in the world. I am asking you to look to the future. You talked about simulators. I believe that they can simulate winds. Please explain in detail — in knots — what winds you put in your simulators to try to see what kind of storm would affect oil rigs, because no one knows what will happen. We are trying to predict an unpredictable future. How far do you go when it comes to wind strength to see if the platform will withstand or break, causing oil to spill?
[English]
Mr. Drodge: Thank you for your question, senator. It is a good one. The answer to it may have been answered the other day, in some part, by my colleague from our Faculty of Engineering, Dr. Veitch.
In any case, when we use simulators to test installations or vessels through Memorial University’s Marine Institute, in terms of our suite of simulators, from a digital aspect, we can simulate pretty much any wind. What you would want to test for structural integrity would be up to its design criteria, which are established in the engineering phase of the construction. These installations are tested in a simulated environment before actually going into the construction phase. Those winds would normally be based upon what we call the 100-year storm. We would test through those.
They can also be tested in facilities like what we have through our collaboration with the National Research Council in St. John’s: the wave tank and ice tanks we have down there, particularly with the Faculty of Engineering. Again, I am not in the Faculty of Engineering — it’s not my expertise — but in the design aspects, those models are built and tested to evaluate their responses to ice conditions and to harsh environmental conditions in a tank environment and in an ice-simulated environment. Those ice simulators are, again, the most advanced in the world and can simulate ice you would find in the offshore, both pack ice and icebergs.
From a simulator aspect in terms of what we can offer at the Marine Institute and which we have done, we have taken scenarios where companies have come to us and asked for simulations based upon specific weather criteria, and we have produced simulations and models that have shown very realistic results, as well as what their limitations and restrictions are. That is important. That drives their own internal policies and procedures, and those are often as a result of collaboration or compliance with the regulator.
It will depend upon the platform. Each design is different. Some platforms can sustain over 100 knots of wind plus. It does depend upon the design. I’m not privy to each installation that is out there right now, but it is in excess of what you would see in a 100-year storm.
The Chair: There are a few more questions. If you are available, we would like to go over the hour that you had agreed to at the beginning.
Mr. Drodge: My flight isn’t until tomorrow, so I’m good.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you, Captain Drodge. I like the question from Senator Miville-Dechêne. She talked about winds. Do you have any information on seismic scenarios in platform design? You can email me your response. There is no need to reply today.
My next question is on seismic surveys. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has adopted a practice standard for companies that conduct seismic testing to find oil deposits. How should we look at seismic activity and the noise associated with mapping surveys in parallel with other environmental pressures, such as vessel noise, fishing, or climate change?
[English]
Mr. Drodge: Thank you, Senator Youance.
I can’t give you an answer with the details I think you would want on this one. I can certainly bring some information back to the committee on that or send it along. There have been studies done on the effects of seismic activity in Newfoundland and Labrador in the offshore, in particular, because we do have seismic activity. When I say “seismic activity,” I don’t mean earthquakes. I mean that we generate seismic through that investigation phase of determining where oil and gas is located, and that’s been happening since the 1960s and 1970s. I can see what I can find. I can be in correspondence and see what would help you answer that question.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Okay. Thank you.
For months, Ottawa has been drafting its Ocean Noise Strategy, and the draft was subject to public consultation in the spring. The strategy’s recommendations include investing in research, encouraging quieter technologies and continuing to monitor underwater sound levels. Have you been involved in this plan? If so, what would be your recommendations in this case? Do you want more money for research at your university?
[English]
Mr. Drodge: The answer to that is no, from the Marine Institute perspective. I’m unsure if the Faculty of Engineering participated. I know they do extensive research on, say, propeller design, so I imagine that they would be interested in additional research funding towards those things because of their Ocean and Naval Architectural Engineering program. They would probably welcome it. But I’m unsure as to whether that faculty participated or not.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Okay.
I have a question related to seismic surveys. For development projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are regional assessments. However, seismic surveys that precede drilling have to be subject to specific protective measures and assessments. Do you have any examples of these assessments that you can share with us?
[English]
Mr. Drodge: No. Personally, I don’t have any examples I can give you on those types of studies.
Senator D. M. Wells: Captain Drodge, you’re a sea captain. Can you talk a little bit about the different vessels that are required in the offshore from the seismic vessels, the drill rigs — which you operated — the production platforms, the tankers and supply vessels? There are many different kinds, and I think the committee would benefit from knowing a little bit about the process and maybe the chronological process of how those vessels fit into the picture.
Mr. Drodge: Certainly. Thank you, Senator Wells, and I think you named them all.
From a chronological point of where this starts from a field perspective is companies or industry will engage in seismic research or take existing data that exists due to previous drilling programs or previous production development plans and determine if an area is suitable for exploration. Those seismic vessels often come in from outside of Canada. I believe there is only one seismic vessel registered in Canada at this time. They’ll do extensive programs, and, as Senator Youance implied, they use acoustic seismic activity to see what is beneath the seabed, and that data is collected and determines the presence of hydrocarbons, whether in gas or oil formation.
That will then determine where an explorer — soon to be, hopefully, a producer — wants to start developing, and in that whole process, you have supply vessels that are bringing supplies back and forth. You’ll start engaging in drilling programs to explore, and then, if the decisions are made, to start with injection and production wells.
All that requires drilling installations, and they can be the semi-submersibles, which I’m primarily experienced with offshore Newfoundland. In deeper water, they would be drill ships, very similar to a tanker type sized vessel with a derrick or duel derrick design. They would drill the required wells to the design of the operators based on their plans.
If it goes into production, if it gets to that stage, then you start to see the installation of subsea assets by specialized construction vessels and dive support vessels and the burying of cables, if necessary, because of ice scour and icebergs, through rock laying vessels and pipe laying vessels, which are very specialized.
Then there is the FPSO itself, which is, again, a very large tanker type vessel —
Senator D. M. Wells: Sorry, Captain Drodge, FPSO?
Mr. Drodge: Floating Production Storage and Offloading unit. It may not be a production unit, like West White Rose. Even though it’s gravity-based, it’s a drilling unit. It’s not a storage unit that ties into the sea rows, the FPSO that is there. It produces and it stores oil before it’s transshipped to another vessel, to your shuttle tankers, which then bring, in our case, the crude oil — because we don’t produce gas — to a transshipment facility in Newfoundland, in Placentia Bay, or directly to market. That could be on the East Coast of Canada. That could be in Europe. That could be on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. All that requires, again, more supply vessels and more dive support vessels for maintenance.
I think that encompasses most vessels, but sometimes there are specialized vessels that are required for specialized operations that occur for either maintenance or investigation into what is going on with certain installations, so it can vary.
Senator D. M. Wells: So a well is drilled, or a number of wells are drilled, and then they’re capped until production is required; is that correct?
Mr. Drodge: Well, they’re not necessarily capped. They will have barriers put in them, and then they will be maintained and then tied into subsea assets for a production facility.
Again, this is not really my expertise around the drilling side and, certainly, the subsea side when it comes to production. But when we cap a well and then abandon it at the end of a well, or at the end of a program, that’s when the operators will actually remove the entirety of the wellhead, so you’re returning it to the way you found it.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Drodge, for being with us here today. There are a few questions that I think you were going to provide a little more information on, and the clerk will follow up with you about that. We appreciate very much your presence here today, and maybe we’ll see you in Newfoundland as well.
Mr. Drodge: Thank you very much, everyone, for welcoming me here today.
The Chair: Senators, we will continue in camera for the next item on our agenda.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Colleagues, we are now back in public.
Is there a motion? Senator Wells?
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, chair. I wish to move:
That the budget application for $47,160 for the study on Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore petroleum industry be approved for submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026.
The Chair: Colleagues, is it approved?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Thank you, all.
(The committee adjourned.)