The Diving Medical Advisory Committee

DMAC, 52 Grosvenor Gardens, London SW1W 0AU, UK [Link]

Safe Diving Distance from Seismic Surveying Operations

Background
Guidance note DMAC 12 Revision 1 was issued in 2011, taking into account changes in seismic procedures since
the original guidance published in 1979 and very limited reports from diving contractors on their experience of
simultaneous operations. Recent incidents have demonstrated that significant adverse effects may be experienced
by divers at distances of up to 27km (16.8 miles) from the seismic source, which is a considerably greater distance
than was previously recognised. This revision takes these reports into account. There is limited understanding of
the effects of seismic pressure waves on divers and hence the guidance given in this document is a pragmatic
solution. It is recognised that further revisions may be required as more knowledge and experience is obtained.

1 Seismic airgun activity results in the transmission of acoustic waves through the water which the diver
experiences as vibration or a noise analogous to a piling hammer. Multiple reflections of this acoustic wave
from the sea surface, seabed and other structures may result in this sounding like a low frequency rumble.
2 The intensity of the pressure wave experienced by the diver is principally dependent on the power of the
seismic airgun array and the distance between the diver and the seismic airgun, but other factors may have
important effects. These factors might include the water depth at which the seismic activity takes place, the
presence of thermoclines (layering due to changes in temperature), the depth of the diver versus the depth of
the thermocline, seabed conditions, salinity and the sea state. Reflections from the surface and seabed may
increase the intensity; this effect generally increases as water depth decreases.
3 Not all seismic surveys are the same (e.g. ocean bottom cable surveys (OBC), streamer(s), vertical seismic
profile surveys (VSP), site surveys, etc.) and there are differences in the types and purpose of source arrays
used around the world, e.g. airguns, boomers, sparkers, etc.
4 The multiple factors involved make it difficult to determine a safe or tolerable distance for diving operations.
5 The duration of a diver’s exposure and frequency of discharge may limit tolerance.

Guidance
1 Where possible, plans should be made to avoid overlapping seismic and diving activities. Where this is not
possible, the activities should be prioritised and a simultaneous operations (SIMOPS) plan developed.
2 Where diving and seismic activity are scheduled to occur within a distance of 45km (28 miles), it would be good
practice for all parties to be made aware of the planned activity where practicable. This should include
clients/operators, diving and seismic contractors.
3 Where diving and seismic activity will occur within a distance of 30km (18.6 miles) a joint risk assessment should
be conducted, between the clients/operators involved and the seismic and diving contractors in advance of any
simultaneous operations. The risk assessment should consider ramp-up trials as well as other risk control
measures e.g. reduction in source sizes, changes to firing intervals, timeshare/prioritisation etc. Seismic
operators should consider whether a source output modelling study should be undertaken to predict sound
pressure levels at diving locations. If so, these sound pressure levels should be considered together with other
relevant factors in the risk assessment.

The views expressed in any guidance given are of a general nature and are volunteered without recourse or responsibility upon the part of the Diving Medical Advisory Committee,
its members or officers. Any person who considers that such opinions are relevant to his circumstances should immediately consult his own advisers.
4 The maintenance of effective communication and co-operation between the seismic vessel and the diving vessel
is essential. If the risk assessment generates a requirement for a ramp up trial, it should define the start point
or location at which the trial commences taking into account the planned movement of the vessel and an
appropriate predetermined communication plan between seismic party manager and diving supervisor.
5 The minimum safe distance, as determined from the risk assessment or testing outlined above, should not be
compromised by either party.
6 There should be regular effective communication between the seismic vessel and diving vessel so that those in
control of seismic and diving operations are aware of each other’s work programmes. A communications check
should be conducted between vessels at a pre-defined regular frequency in order to reduce the chance of an
unknown communications failure.
7 Should any member of the diving team in the water suddenly experience discomfort, the seismic source should
be turned off immediately or the bell run terminated if a request is made to do so. The SIMOPS plan should
include contingency arrangements for this situation.
8 Following the risk assessment and any ramp-up trials local factors may change. This combined with individual
diver susceptibility may produce the need for further risk assessment and a management of change process.
9 The health impact of exposure to noise in the underwater environment is difficult to assess. A diver’s exposure
should be terminated if the noise level:
 interferes with diver communications;
 is considered to exceed acceptable noise exposure levels;
 induces discomfort; or
 places the diver at risk in any other way.
Diving operations may continue if none of these criteria for terminating diving operations are present, including
diving within 30km (18.6 miles) of seismic surveying operations.
10 Diver reports suggest that communications problems may often provide the earliest and most reliable/objective
indication that the underwater noise from a seismic source has reached an unacceptable level. It is therefore
strongly emphasised that the seismic source must be turned off immediately or the bell run terminated if the
noise level compromises communications between the diver(s) and diving supervisor. In order to conduct
diving operations safely there must always be good communications between the divers in the water and the
supervisor in dive control.
11 When simultaneous operations are conducted, the diving contractor should generate and submit a short online
Report of Simultaneous Seismic and Diving Operations at [Link]/data.
DMAC will periodically review the data gathered from such reports.
12 Organisations which provide consent for seismic operations may wish to take into account the potential impact
of seismic activity on divers and consider whether a requirement for monitoring the area for new diving activity
is appropriate.
13 Diving contractors and clients/operators should seek to ensure they are aware of planned or consented seismic
operations using all reasonable means. For example, in some jurisdictions survey consent details are made
publicly available e.g. the UK Kingfisher Bulletin; the Norway SAM-X database etc.

Other Activities
This guidance aims to reduce the potential risk to divers from seismic operations. However, it is recognised that
other activities such as pile-driving, the use of explosives underwater and beneath the seabed etc. may generate
noise levels that could pose a risk to divers. These activities should be planned and assessed in accordance with
the principles above and it must be recognised that simultaneous operations may not be possible if the noise level
interferes with diver communications, is considered to exceed acceptable noise exposure levels, induces discomfort
or places the diver at risk in any other way.

Specific guidance on the effects of sonar transmission on commercial diving activities may be found in DMAC 06
The effects of sonar transmission on commercial diving activities.

There is no evidence to indicate that down-well fracking operations produce any underwater noise.

Page 2 October 2019 DMAC 12 Rev. 2