subsea innovation

UH team partners with Chevron, Oceaneering for remote-operated pipeline inspector

The robots, developed by UH researchers, will provide a safer and more cost effective alternative to pipeline inspections, which are traditionally performed by human divers and require a great deal of time and money. Photo via UH.edu

Two professors at the University of Houston have developed an autonomous subsea vehicle that aims to decrease the number and severity of oil spills.

Known as SmartTouch technology, the Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs) use smart touch sensors, video cameras and scanning sonars to inspect flange bolts in subsea pipelines, which are considered to lead to increased rates of leakage, according to a release from the university.

The ROVs, developed by UH's Zheng Chen and Gangbing Song, will provide a safer and more cost effective alternative to pipeline inspections, which are traditionally performed by human divers and require a great deal of time and money.

“By automating the inspection process with this state-of-the art robotic technology, we can dramatically reduce the cost and risk of these important subsea inspections which will lead to safer operations of offshore oil and gas pipelines as less intervention from human divers will be needed,” Chen, the Bill D. Cook Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering, said in a statement.

The technology will also be highly accurate in monitoring corrosion, which according to Song, the John and Rebecca Moores Professor of Mechanical Engineering, is responsible for most small leaks in subsea pipelines.

The project is funded by a $960,000 grant from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), which is a part of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Chen and Song are also collaborating with Houston-based Oceaneering International on the development of the ROVs, which Oceaneering specializes in. Energy giant Chevron will evaluate the technology’s future commercialization, according to UH, and preliminary studies were funded by the university's Subsea Systems Institute.

Thus far, a prototype of the ROVs has been tested in Chen's lab at UH and in Galveston Bay. Experiments showed the technology's ability to inspect the looseness of subsea bolted connections, like flange bolts.

Chen and Song see other applications for their technology, as well.

"Ultimately, the project will push the boundaries of what can be accomplished by integrating robotics and structural health monitoring technologies," Chen added in the statement. "With proper implementation, the rate of subsea pipeline failure and related accidents will decrease, and subsea operations will be free to expand at a faster rate than before.”

Earlier this summer the UH Subsea Systems Institute and SPRINT Robotics teamed up to develop a robotics training program for the energy industry known as “Robotics in Energy.” The first of a series of two-day courses debuted in May and a subsequent course, Automation & Autonomy, will launch next month. Others are expected to be rolled out in the future as part of the university's Micro-Credentialing Programs in UH Energy.

Additionally Chevron and UH partnered up again last month to announce its inaugural cohort of UH-Chevron Energy Graduate Fellows.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Lawyers for a Tesla shareholder who sued to block the pay package contended that shareholders who had voted for the 10-year plan in 2018 had been given misleading and incomplete information. Photo via cdn.britannica.com

For a second time, a Delaware judge has nullified a pay package that Tesla had awarded its CEO, Elon Musk, that once was valued at $56 billion.

Last week, Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick turned aside a request from Musk's lawyers to reverse a ruling she announced in January that had thrown out the compensation plan. The judge ruled then that Musk effectively controlled Tesla's board and had engineered the outsize pay package during sham negotiations.

Lawyers for a Tesla shareholder who sued to block the pay package contended that shareholders who had voted for the 10-year plan in 2018 had been given misleading and incomplete information.

In their defense, Tesla's board members asserted that the shareholders who ratified the pay plan a second time in June had done so after receiving full disclosures, thereby curing all the problems the judge had cited in her January ruling. As a result, they argued, Musk deserved the pay package for having raised Tesla's market value by billions of dollars.

McCormick rejected that argument. In her 103-page opinion, she ruled that under Delaware law, Tesla's lawyers had no grounds to reverse her January ruling “based on evidence they created after trial.”

What will Musk and Tesla do now?

On Monday night, Tesla posted on X, the social media platform owned by Musk, that the company will appeal. The appeal would be filed with the Delaware Supreme Court, the only state appellate court Tesla can pursue. Experts say a ruling would likely come in less than a year.

“The ruling, if not overturned, means that judges and plaintiffs' lawyers run Delaware companies rather than their rightful owners — the shareholders,” Tesla argued.

Later, on X, Musk unleashed a blistering attack on the judge, asserting that McCormick is “a radical far left activist cosplaying as a judge.”

What do experts say about the case?

Legal authorities generally suggest that McCormick’s ruling was sound and followed the law. Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, said that in his view, McCormick was right to rule that after Tesla lost its case in the original trial, it created improper new evidence by asking shareholders to ratify the pay package a second time.

Had she allowed such a claim, he said, it would cause a major shift in Delaware’s laws against conflicts of interest given the unusually close relationship between Musk and Tesla’s board.

“Delaware protects investors — that’s what she did,” said Elson, who has followed the court for more than three decades. “Just because you’re a ‘superstar CEO’ doesn’t put you in a separate category.”

Elson said he thinks investors would be reluctant to put money into Delaware companies if there were exceptions to the law for “special people.”

What will the Delaware Supreme Court do?

Elson said that in his opinion, the court is likely to uphold McCormick's ruling.

Can Tesla appeal to federal courts?

Experts say no. Rulings on state laws are normally left to state courts. Brian Dunn, program director for the Institute of Compensation Studies at Cornell University, said it's been his experience that Tesla has no choice but to stay in the Delaware courts for this compensation package.

Tesla has moved its legal headquarters to Texas. Does that matter?

The company could try to reconstitute the pay package and seek approval in Texas, where it may expect more friendlier judges. But Dunn, who has spent 40 years as an executive compensation consultant, said it's likely that some other shareholder would challenge the award in Texas because it's excessive compared with other CEOs' pay plans.

“If they just want to turn around and deliver him $56 billion, I can't believe somebody wouldn't want to litigate it,” Dunn said. “It's an unconscionable amount of money.”

Would a new pay package be even larger?

Almost certainly. Tesla stock is trading at 15 times the exercise price of stock options in the current package in Delaware, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a note to investors. Tesla's share price has doubled in the past six months, Jonas wrote. At Monday’s closing stock price, the Musk package is now worth $101.4 billion, according to Equilar, an executive data firm.

And Musk has asked for a subsequent pay package that would give him 25 percent of Tesla's voting shares. Musk has said he is uncomfortable moving further into artificial intelligence with the company if he doesn't have 25 percent control. He currently holds about 13 percent of Tesla's outstanding shares.

Trending News