A subsea cable monitoring proposal should let the owner picture the watch. Which assets are covered? What can the monitoring team see? What happens when a vessel becomes a risk? And who acts before it reaches the cable?
Those questions matter because two services can look similar on paper and stop at very different points. One may raise an automated alarm. Another may put a trained analyst behind it, contact the vessel and stay with the event until the risk has passed. UltramapGlobal has protected subsea assets since 2009. These are the things a monitoring proposal should make clear.
Which subsea assets and route sections will be monitored?
The proposal should begin with the cable and its route. It may cover one line, several sections, landing points, neighbouring pipelines or the moving work area around an installation.
Length is only one part of the picture. A route may cross a port approach, fishing grounds, anchorages or water beyond the reach of one shore receiver. The proposal should show that those changes have been understood, rather than treating the whole route as one identical line.
The boundaries of the service should be equally clear. If neighbouring assets, temporary work areas or sections outside the main route are excluded, the proposal should say so. That prevents a difference between what the owner believes is protected and what the monitoring team has actually been asked to watch.
Which vessel risks should the monitoring service address?
The threat is usually a vessel in the wrong place. An anchor is dropped over the cable. Fishing gear is dragged across it. A ship loiters, strays from its course or moves towards an installation area.
A useful proposal names the behaviour the service is there to catch. The risks around a telecoms cable, power interconnector, offshore wind export route and cable installation are not always the same, and the watch should reflect that.
Those behaviours should be linked to the asset and location. Anchoring may be the main concern near a port approach, while trawling or slow vessel movement may matter more elsewhere. Naming the likely threats gives the monitoring provider something specific to configure and the owner something specific to assess.
Which AIS, DAS and other data sources will be included?
AIS is the position and movement information vessels broadcast about themselves. A proposal should state where that information will come from: shore-based receivers, satellites, guard vessels, patrol vessels, cable landing stations or a combination of them.
Where Distributed Acoustic Sensing is included, the proposal should explain what it adds. DAS provides real-time information about activity at or near the seabed, including activity associated with dark vessels that are not transmitting AIS.
The point is not to list technology. It is to show what the monitoring team will be able to see around the asset.
The proposal should also explain how gaps or interruptions in those feeds will be handled. Several data sources may overlap, but they do not all provide the same reach or update rate. The owner needs to understand what level of continuity the service is designed to maintain along the whole route.
How will the cable protection zones be configured?
Protection zones turn the route into an operational watch. They define where a movement becomes an early warning and where action is required.
Where it helps, a layered defence may use a 1,000 metre early-warning perimeter and a 500 metre action-required perimeter. Those distances are not universal. The provider should explain how the zones have been shaped around the traffic, the asset and the time needed to respond.
The proposal should show the zones on the route and describe the rule attached to each one. A boundary without a response rule is only a line on a map. The useful detail is what raises an alarm, how quickly it is reviewed and what must happen before the vessel reaches the next boundary.
Who will assess alarms and contact threatening vessels?
This is the part of a proposal worth reading closely. Does the service end when an alert appears, or does a trained analyst assess what is happening and contact the vessel?
UltramapGlobal’s Global Monitoring Teams work from the UK, the Philippines and Oman, covering 24 hours a day in eight-hour shifts. The monitoring team never sleeps, because the cable does not stop needing protection when one office closes.
The proposal should make the provider’s responsibility clear. Data, software, alarm, assessment, vessel contact and escalation are separate stages. The owner should know which of them are included.
Staffing detail matters as well. The proposal should explain whether cover is continuous, how shifts hand over live events and what experience the analysts have in interpreting vessel behaviour. An owner should not have to infer who is responsible when an alarm arrives outside normal office hours.
How will vessel contact and escalation be handled?
Once a risk is confirmed, the team needs an agreed route to action. The proposal should name the contacts, communication channels and point at which an event moves from observation to escalation.
That process should be set before the service goes live. A power cable carrying national supply may need a different response from a cable installation project or offshore wind export route.
The escalation process should distinguish between continued monitoring, repeated vessel contact and notification to the owner. It should also state who has authority to make each decision. Clear ownership matters most when the available response time is getting shorter.
What monitoring reports and incident records will be provided?
Monitoring should leave a useful record. The proposal should say how vessel tracks, alarms, calls and outcomes will be reported, and how often the client will receive the information. Those Activity Reports do more than record what happened. They reveal repeat behaviour, hazard hot-spots and changes around the route, helping the team learn as the watch continues.
The format should suit the people who will use it. Operations teams may need a concise account of alarms and interventions, while risk, insurance or legal teams may need a fuller evidential record. The proposal should define the content, frequency and delivery method rather than referring only to standard reporting.
How will the monitoring service be mobilised and tested?
Before monitoring begins, the route data, protection zones, contact lists and escalation rules have to be prepared and tested. The proposal should show what information the owner needs to provide, who signs off the setup and how the service will be checked before the watch starts. It should also explain how the service changes when shipping patterns move, offshore work begins or the scope of the asset changes.
A sensible mobilisation plan includes a review point after launch. Early live traffic may reveal that a rule is too broad, too narrow or producing unnecessary alarms. The proposal should explain how those findings will be reviewed and how agreed changes will be controlled.
Which additional subsea cable protection services are included?
Some routes need more than the core software and monitoring teams. Marine liaison can improve cable awareness at targeted locations. Additional data services can examine vessel behaviour in more detail. DAS can add seabed detection, and UltramapGlobal RED can provide urgent support around a strike or near-miss. Those services should be separated clearly, so the owner can see what the route needs now and what remains optional.
Optional services should still have a clear purpose. The proposal should connect each one to a route risk or operational need, rather than presenting a long list of available additions. If the owner cannot see what a service changes in the watch, it should not be included by default.
What should cable owners compare in a monitoring proposal?
By the end of the document, the owner should know which assets are covered, what the team can see, what raises an alarm, who responds, how a vessel is contacted and how the outcome is recorded. If the proposal cannot answer those questions plainly, it has not explained the protection being bought. That clarity also makes procurement easier. Owners can compare providers on the full chain from data collection to intervention and reporting. It reduces the risk of choosing a lower headline price only to discover that essential human response or route-specific work sits outside the quoted service.
Discuss your subsea cable monitoring requirements
Tell UltramapGlobal which assets need to be watched, and the team can talk through how the watch would run on those routes. Contact us at info@ultramapglobal.com or call +44 (0)191 233 6351.
Frequently asked questions about subsea cable monitoring proposals
What is the difference between monitoring software and a managed monitoring service?
Monitoring software organises data and raises alerts. A managed service adds trained analysts who assess events, contact vessels, follow escalation procedures and report the outcome.
Should a proposal include both AIS and DAS?
Only where both are appropriate to the route and risk. The provider should explain what each source adds and how the information will be combined.
How can buyers compare subsea cable monitoring providers?
Compare the full response: data coverage, route configuration, analyst coverage, vessel contact, escalation, reporting and relevant operating experience.
