Solutions
Applied Analytics: independent validation of performance claims
What you get
When an OEM or service company says its technology delivers, someone has to prove it — and neither the vendor nor the customer is a neutral party. Stepwise sits between them. We take the operational data, establish what the asset did before, measure what it did after, and quantify the operational and economic difference. Independent by design, with a stated method and stated limits.
- A defined before-and-after measurement scope, agreed with all parties up front
- Baseline established from operational data, not vendor specification
- Quantified operational impact — time, fuel, cost, with a stated method, stated assumptions, and stated confidence
- A result both the vendor and the customer can put in front of a third party
No one else in the offshore sector offers this as a defined service.
Who it's for
OEMs and service companies that need neutral proof of what their technology delivers. Operators and drilling contractors evaluating whether a technology claim holds on their asset.
Case study
Advanced drillship
An offshore drilling contractor asked Stepwise to quantify how engine utilisation affects fuel efficiency, independent of any change in propulsion demand. At a fixed power demand of 4,952 kW, we compared two engine-utilisation scenarios — 27% and 53% — to isolate the effect of utilisation from the effect of power reduction itself.
Extra fuel saved / day
3.1m³ (≈$2,480)
Extra CO₂ Te avoided / day
7.17 CO₂ Te (≈$717 tax)
SFOC
199.1 → 176.6 g/kWh
Engine utilisation
27% → 53%
Power reduction (unchanged)
34.9%
Fuel reduction
29.3% → 37.3%
Avg. engines running
3 → 1.5
Total extra daily saving
$3,197 / day
No named reference client. The value of the service is its independence, and naming the technology provider risks making the work feel promotional rather than objective.
Why the number holds up
The comparison holds power demand fixed at 4,952 kW across both scenarios, isolating engine utilisation as the only variable — so the fuel-reduction gap can't be attributed to a change in propulsion load. Pricing assumptions (MGO $800/m³, CO₂ tax $100/Te) are stated alongside the figures rather than left implicit.
Both scenarios share the same 34.9% power reduction — it's the fuel-reduction difference (29.3% vs 37.3%) that isolates the SFOC and engine-count effect, not a change in the underlying power target.
Both scenarios share the same 34.9% power reduction — it's the fuel-reduction difference (29.3% vs 37.3%) that isolates the SFOC and engine-count effect, not a change in the underlying power target.
Case study
Subsea equipment OEM
An OEM was bringing its electric BOP (eBOP) to market as a step-change in subsea well-control safety and efficiency over conventional configurations. Leadership needed an operational value number that was defensible outside the OEM's own marketing.
Annualised cost savings
$12.6–21.6M
CO₂e avoided
2,316–3,938 tCO₂e
Well duration removed
13.3–21.9 days
Annualised fuel savings
855–1,453 m³
Per-wellbore savings from BOP pull avoidance
40–80%
No named reference client. The value of the service is its independence, and naming the technology provider risks making the work feel promotional rather than objective.
Why the number holds up
The OEM's optimistic inputs were pulled back to a defensible floor before any number was reported — benchmarked against SafeOCS data (2017–2023) covering four contractors and one operator, and checked against public incident and duration data.
The result is cross-validated across three regions and five wellbores, and the $12.6–21.6M range already reflects the conservative view — not the OEM's own optimistic case.
The result is cross-validated across three regions and five wellbores, and the $12.6–21.6M range already reflects the conservative view — not the OEM's own optimistic case.
Want to learn more?
Stepwise transforms operational data into clear insights and measurable savings.
Request our info pack to get started.