Surface-supplied vs scuba back in the day, I chose wrong at first

Honestly, back in 2005 I had to pick between sticking with scuba gear or getting trained on surface-supplied systems. I went with scuba because it was cheaper and I knew it already. After about 6 months working oil rigs in the Gulf, I realized I was missing out on deeper jobs that paid double. Switched over to surface-supplied in 2006 and it took me a full year to feel comfortable with the umbilical and comms. Has anyone else made a similar gear choice that set them back a bit?

3 comments

3 Comments

kelly.nora6d ago

@the_charles that's the thing, people often assume we had full control over our choices, but back then the company's gear budget and the rig's setup decided a lot of it. It's funny how that pattern shows up in other fields too, like mechanics having to stick with outdated tools because the shop won't buy new ones.

the_charles7d ago

Gotta say, scuba on oil rigs in 2005 was already pretty rare for deeper work. Surface supplied was the standard for most commercial gigs by then, so you kinda chose the harder path there lol.

jennysullivan7d ago

Check out the North Sea in 2005, where many rigs still used scuba for inspection work under 40 meters because the boats weren't set up for surface-supplied. HARSCO had guys running scuba on BP platforms as late as 2006, no comms, just a tank and a slate board. Surface supplied was safer and the standard for big construction, but plenty of operators cut corners to save on deck space and gear costs back then. So who's really picking the harder path when the company writes the work order?