I spent a significant part of 2025 on the southern Australian coastline watching for whales. Not casually. Systematically. Structured observation sessions, consistent protocols, documented effort.  

The Otway Basin is a designated Biologically Important Area for Southern Right Whales, which are listed as Endangered under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Our goal was to build a credible baseline dataset to better understand whale presence and coastal use in the region during the winter reproduction season.  For coastal monitoring programs, understanding where and when whales are present is essential for designing appropriate environmental management measures. 

As Environmental Consultant Rachel Hurley, involved in the monitoring program, also noted: 

“For a population listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act, improving the consistency of monitoring is critical. Reliable observation and monitoring methods help us better understand where whales are using the coastline and whether those patterns change over time.” 

What I came away with wasn’t just data. It was a much clearer understanding of what shore-based monitoring can and can’t do, and why the gap between those two things matters.  

Pictured: Evan O’Reilly, Chief Remote Pilot; Rachel Hurley, Environmental Consultant; and Caoimhe Tweedy, Senior Environmental Consultant 

What the Season Revealed 

We completed 110 observation sessions across the season. 275 hours of documented field effort. Confirmed whale presence in the area throughout. 

What struck me wasn’t any single number. It was the cumulative weight of the conditions. Swell patterns that swallow a blow at anything beyond a few hundred metres. The geometry of scanning horizontally across a curved, constantly moving surface. Low winter light creating glare across the water at exactly the hours when whales are most active near shore. 

The conditions that make this coastline extraordinary to be in are precisely what make it hard to monitor from land. 

The Question That Followed 

After that season, the question I kept coming back to wasn’t how to do shore-based monitoring better. It was whether there was a fundamentally different way to approach the problem. 

What if you removed the horizontal line of sight entirely? 

Altitude changes everything about the observation geometry. Looking down through the water column from above, the swell that obscures a blow from shore becomes largely irrelevant. Glare affects a horizontal observer, but it doesn’t affect a sensor looking straight down. Many of the observational constraints of a difficult coastline simply disappear when viewed from above. 

Thermal imaging adds another dimension. A whale at the surface produces an unmistakable heat signature against cold water, detectable regardless of light conditions, at dawn, at dusk, and at night. Species that are largely nocturnal and have historically been almost impossible to survey systematically, Little Penguins for instance, become observable in conditions that were simply closed to conventional methods. 

A drone carrying both thermal and high-resolution RGB sensors, flying systematic transects beyond visual line of sight, can cover a coastal survey area in a fraction of the time a shore rotation takes. Every pass produces geo-referenced, time-stamped data. The platform doesn’t fatigue. It performs the same way on a grey August morning as it does on a clear October afternoon, and that consistency is what makes a dataset genuinely useful over time. 

“Environmental monitoring is only as valuable as the dataset it builds” 

A baseline produced under highly variable observational conditions, where what you detect depends heavily on the weather, the light, the sea state, and the observer on any given day, has real limits when you try to draw conclusions from it across time. 

The value of a more consistent survey platform isn’t just that it detects more. It’s that it detects in a way that’s comparable from one session to the next, one season to the next. That comparability is what turns monitoring into a genuine long-term record, the kind that can tell you whether a population is stable, whether habitat use is shifting, whether conditions are changing. 

What I’m Working Towards 

One season of shore-based observation gave me a clear picture of the problem. The next step is deploying the technology to address it properly. 

I’ll be sharing more about what that looks like and what we’re building at Klarite in the weeks ahead. 

Contact me for more: eoreilly@klarite.com.au. 

Evan O’Reilly, Chief Remote Pilot  

Evan O’Reilly is Chief Remote Pilot at Klarite, leading the integration of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) into offshore environmental monitoring programs. With a Bachelor of Earth Science and experience in environmental sampling, compliance monitoring, and impact assessment, he combines practical field expertise with advanced spatial analysis to support defensible environmental decision-making. Evan holds a Remote Pilot Licence (RePL), Aeronautical Radio Operator Certificate (AROC), and serves as Klarite’s Chief Remote Pilot (CRP), progressing advanced operational capability including Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) flight operations. Originally from Ireland, he relocated to Australia to pursue opportunities in the environmental sector and focuses on applying emerging technologies to strengthen marine monitoring and data quality in complex offshore environments. 

Seismic surveys are essential for understanding subsurface geological formations, particularly in offshore exploration for oil and gas, and renewables. While concerns exist about their impact on marine life, it’s important to note that seismic surveys have been conducted in Australia’s marine waters for decades—often alongside commercial fishing—with limited evidence of widespread disruption to fisheries operations (Meekan et al., 2021). This coexistence provides useful context for ongoing environmental management.

The Necessity of Proper Impact Assessment and Mitigation

Traditional seismic operations employ high-energy sound pulses—typically from airgun arrays—that can affect marine fauna, including whales, dolphins, fish, and invertebrates, by interfering with communication, navigation, and normal behaviours. Peer-reviewed research has demonstrated a range of biological responses, such as startle or avoidance reactions in squid (Fewtrell & McCauley, 2012), physiological effects on shellfish (Day et al., 2017; 2019), and increased mortality in plankton within hundreds of metres of the source (McCauley et al., 2017). For fish and other marine organisms, exposure to intense impulsive sounds has been linked to temporary hearing threshold shifts and stress responses (Popper et al., 2014; Southall et al., 2007; 2019).

Recognising these impacts, Australia’s environmental and offshore petroleum regulatory framework mandates detailed impact assessments and mitigation protocols before any seismic survey commences. This is primarily governed by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, administered by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA). NOPSEMA’s Information Paper IPI765 – Acoustic Impact Evaluation and Management (2018) provides guidance on evaluating and managing underwater noise impacts. The EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 – Interaction Between Offshore Seismic Exploration and Whales outlines precautionary measures to minimise acoustic injury to cetaceans.

At Klarite, we work closely with titleholders and stakeholders to ensure mitigation strategies are aligned with best practice and scientific standards such as NOAA NMFS Technical Guidance (2024) for underwater noise thresholds and IUCN (2016) recommendations for geophysical survey management. Measures include soft-start procedures, exclusion zones where appropriate, the use of marine fauna observers, real-time monitoring, and the adoption of technologies designed to reduce acoustic disturbance.

Innovations in Seismic Acquisition Technology

The seismic industry is undergoing a transformation, with new technologies emerging to reduce environmental impacts. Some remain in research and development, while others are now commercially available. These innovations aim to reduce sound intensity, control frequency output, and minimise disruption to marine ecosystems. However, it is important to recognise that every technology comes with trade-offs, and adoption requires a careful assessment of overall environmental effects rather than focusing on a single metric. Below is a summary of key technology types and examples:

Environmental Impact Trade Offs

Selecting a seismic technology is not just about implementing the system that reduces one particular impact. Every technology has its trade-offs: while some sources may lower high-frequency sound levels, they can elevate other cause–effect pathways, such as particle motion or low-frequency energy, which may affect different marine species.

Understanding the broader environmental impacts is essential for informed decision-making, rather than focusing on a single metric. Emerging technologies like marine vibroseis demonstrate potential benefits, such as lower peak sound levels, but their long-term ecological effects, particularly associated with alternative pathways, are not yet well quantified. This uncertainty can be a barrier to adoption, emphasising the importance of continued research, environmental assessment, and a careful evaluation of trade-offs to achieve a reduction in overall environmental impacts.

This principle is further illustrated in the discussion of pressure-based versus sound-based energy sources below.

Emerging Considerations: Pressure vs. Sound

Some technologies, such as MV and vibratory sources, generate controllable acoustic signals through volume displacement of water using a vibrating plate or shell. These pressure-based methods may offer environmental advantages by producing lower acoustic pressure and reduced bandwidth (spectral content) compared to airgun sources. However, few empirical studies have assessed biological responses to marine vibroseis. Matthews et al. (2020) modelled sound fields but noted that further research is needed to understand the biological effects of pressure-based exposure on marine species, particularly invertebrates and early life stages.

Technology Accessibility

While seismic source technology has advanced significantly and several next-generation systems are now commercially available—such as Digital Frequency-Controlled Sources (Teledyne eSource), Tuned Pulse Sources (Sercel TPS), and Enhanced Pneumatic Sources (Gemini EFS)—their adoption is not straight-forward. Widespread deployment remains limited, and each technology comes with unique environmental trade-offs that must be considered in context (Li & Bayly, 2017; Sercel, 2022; Udengaard et al., 2024).

Implementation often requires vessel retrofitting, source-controller compatibility, and operator training (PGS, 2021; CGG, 2020). Similarly, OBN systems offer environmental advantages by eliminating long towed streamers, but their use depends on survey type, water depth, and logistical feasibility (TGS, n.d.; Zhang et al., 2021).

Titleholders demonstrate commitment to environmental stewardship by assessing trade-offs and costs of implementing technologies wherever practicable. Adaptive management and continuous improvement ensure alignment with NOPSEMA’s expectations for best available technology. As fleet modernisation continues, the availability of advanced source systems is expected to broaden, but until then, operators must balance technological accessibility with achieving the highest practicable environmental outcomes.

The Path Forward: Innovation Meets Responsibility

The seismic industry continues to evolve through scientific research, technological advancement, and responsible planning. Klarite can support clients with ALARP analysis, a requirement of environmental plans, and help integrate new technologies in ways that meaningfully reduce environmental impacts.

By embracing innovation alongside careful evaluation and collaboration, seismic exploration can progress sustainably, protecting marine ecosystems while supporting energy development. As technologies advance, so too does our ability to balance exploration with conservation—building a future where responsible resource development and marine protection go hand in hand.

Vicki Doidge, Projects Manager

Vicki is a seasoned professional with 16 years of invaluable experience across the oil and gas industry. With a diverse background, she has successfully navigated technical roles as an exploration geoscientist and GIS cartographer, as well as customer-facing sales and business development positions. Vicki’s specialisation lies in geoscience and engineering software technology, making her a sought-after expert in the Asia Pacific region 

Currently serving as a Project Manager at Klarite Pty Ltd, Vicki spearheads the delivery of exceptional environment plan and consultation services to our valued clients. Her dedication to ensuring effective communication and collaboration sets the foundation for successful projects and fosters positive working relationships. Her ability to bring diverse stakeholders together and provide a platform for all voices to be heard is instrumental in driving sustainable outcomes for our clients and the environment.

References

• CGG (2020). Source Deghosting for Synchronized Multi-Level Source Streamer Data. Viridien Group.
• Day, R.D., McCauley, R.D., Fitzgibbon, Q.P., Hartmann, K., & Semmens, J.M. (2017). Seismic air gun exposure during embryonic development does not affect hatching success or larval behaviour of the spiny lobster (Panulirus cygnus). Scientific Reports, 7:689.
• Day, R.D., McCauley, R.D., Fitzgibbon, Q.P., Hartmann, K., & Semmens, J.M. (2019). Exposure to seismic air gun signals causes physiological stress in spiny lobsters. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6:472.
• DEWHA (2008). EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1: Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales.
• Fewtrell, J., & McCauley, R.D. (2012). Impact of air gun noise on the behaviour of marine fish and squid. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64:984–993.
• IUCN (2016). Effective Planning Strategies for Managing Environmental Risk Associated with Geophysical and Other Imaging Surveys.
• Li, Z., & Bayly, M. (2017). Quantitative assessment of environmental benefits of bandwidth-controlled marine seismic source technology. 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition.
• Matthews, M.R., Ireland, D.S., Zeddies, D.G., Brune, R.H., & Pyć, C.D. (2020). A modeling comparison of potential effects on marine mammals from sounds produced by marine vibroseis and air gun seismic sources. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 148(2):985–1001.
• Meekan, M.G., Speed, C.W., McCauley, R.D., Parsons, M.J.G. (2021). A large scale experiment finds no evidence that a seismic survey impacts a demersal fish fauna.
• McCauley, R.D. et al. (2017). Widely used marine seismic survey air gun operations negatively impact zooplankton. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1:0195.
• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (2018). Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0).
• NOPSEMA (2018). Information Paper IPI765 – Acoustic Impact Evaluation and Management.
• (2020). Widmaier, M., Tønnessen, R., Oukili, J., Roalkvam, C. “Recent advances with wide-tow multi-sources in marine seismic streamer acquisition and imaging.” FIRST BREAK 38(12).
• PGS (2021). Sustainability in Seismic: Enabling Low-Emission, High-Performance Acquisition. Technical Note.
• Popper, A.N., Hawkins, A.D., Fay, R.R., Mann, D.A., Bartol, S.M., Carlson, T.J., et al. (2014). Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles. NOAA Fisheries Scientific and Technical Report NMFS-OPR-55.
• Sercel (2022). TPS Broadband Marine Source Technical Brochure. Sercel Group.
• Shearwater GeoServices. (n.d.). Advanced Seismic Sources – Marine Vibroseis.
• Southall, B.L. et al. (2007). Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33(4):411–521.
• Southall, B.L. et al. (2019). Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Updated scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 45(2):125–232.
• Teledyne Marine (n.d.). Calmer Waters: Reducing Sound Exposure to Marine Mammals During Seismic Surveys.
• TGS, n.d.; Zhang, Y., et al. (2021). A review of OBN processing: challenges and solutions. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 18(4):492–502.
• Udengaard, M., et al. (2024). An enhanced frequency source for modern marine seismic surveys. 85th EAGE Conference

As the offshore energy industry evolves, drones are revolutionising operations by enabling advanced environmental monitoring with precision, efficiency, and reduced risk. Their versatility and adaptability make them indispensable tools in meeting industry demands while maintaining high safety and environmental standards.

Let’s explore how drones are transforming the offshore energy landscape.

Why Drones? A Game-Changer for Offshore Energy Operations

Offshore energy projects operate in complex, remote environments. Drones are low cost, light weight aircraft systems operated from the ground, capable of capturing photos and videos (Anderson and Gatson, 2013). These ‘eyes in the sky’ are increasingly used to study marine wildlife, including cetaceans such as Killer whales (Orcinus orca), Blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus), Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus), and even other marine species such as turtles, penguins, and dugongs (Durban et al. 2015; Durban et al. 2016; Ratnaswamy and Winn 1993; Bevan et al. 2015; Goebel et al. 2015; Hodgson et al. 2013).

Applications in Offshore Energy

1. Research and Data Collection: A Look at Marine Wildlife

One of the most promising applications of drones in offshore energy lies in their ability to support marine environmental research.

Caoimhe Tweedy, Senior Environment Consultant at Klarite explored the feasibility of using drones for photogrammetry as part of a master’s thesis in Marine Biology at University College Cork, Ireland. Photogrammetry is a non-invasive method for measuring marine mammals. Tweedy conducted drone flights over the Shannon Estuary in Ireland to measure bottlenose dolphins’ length as an indicator of health and maturity.

Photogrammetry Explained:

• Stereo Photogrammetry: Creates 3D models from overlapping images for precise measurements.
• Single Camera Photogrammetry: Uses a known object in the image for scale.

Findings:

• Shannon dolphins were smaller in size compared to non-resident populations. This could be linked to factors such as water temperature and diet.
• Coastal dolphins primarily fed on fish, while offshore populations had diets rich in squid.

These insights are an example of how drones can deliver critical data for understanding marine ecosystems, informing offshore energy project planning, and ensuring environmental compliance.

2. Environmental Monitoring

In offshore energy, understanding marine ecosystems and ensuring compliance are essential. Drones provide a bird’s-eye view of wildlife activity, spill detection, and coastline impact assessments.

By leveraging advanced technologies like drones, the sector can monitor and minimise its environmental footprint, helping to maintain balance with surrounding ecosystems.

Innovations on the Horizon

As drone technology evolves, new opportunities are emerging:

• AI Integration: Drones equipped with AI can identify patterns, predict maintenance needs, and even flag environmental concerns autonomously.
• Underwater Drones: These can inspect submerged assets, opening new possibilities for comprehensive offshore monitoring.

Did You Know?

• The global drone market for energy applications is projected to grow to USD 2.5 billion by 2030.
• Offshore drones can withstand extreme weather conditions, including high winds and salty environments.
• A single drone inspection can save up to 50% of the cost compared to traditional methods.

Driving Sustainable Solutions with Klarite

At Klarite, we stay at the forefront of innovation, applying cutting-edge technology to support sustainable and efficient offshore energy solutions. By leveraging tools like drones and collaborating with industry advancements, we help clients navigate complex challenges while adhering to the highest safety and environmental standards.

Follow Klarite for more insights on marine consultancy, technological advancements, and sustainability.

Caoimhe Tweedy, Senior Environment Consultant

Caoimhe is a seasoned environmental professional with a strong academic background in marine science and biology, highlighted by her research on Bottlenose Dolphins using UAVs and her work in sea turtle conservation. Her expertise spans both offshore and onshore environmental consulting projects, where she has applied her knowledge to protect and conserve natural habitats and marine life.

Currently a Senior Environmental Consultant at Klarite, Caoimhe leads complex environmental impact assessments and develops advanced management strategies for marine mammals. Her leadership ensures the integration of science-based solutions that harmonise ecological health with development objectives, providing strategic guidance to clients on sustainable practices and regulatory compliance.