Meeting Notes for ISO /TC67/SC7/WG7 Panel 53 at BP, Houston, 28th July 2011
ISO TC67/SC7/WG7 Panel 53 Mobile Floating Units
Meeting Notes
28th July 2011 1300 to 1600
Present: John Stiff (ABSC), Craig Colby (Diamond), Fernando Frimm (GustoMSC), Jim Brekke (Transocean), Todd Veselis (Intermoor), Gail Baxter (Marathon), Paul Erb (Host - BP), Mason Melkowits (Ensco), KT Ma (Chevron), Derren Liu (GVA), TO Cheung (KOM USA), Alan Spackman (IADC), Nicolas Gutierrez (ExxonMobil), Jonathon Domsalla (F&G) Also, see sign-in sheet at end of Minutes.
Who / Discussion / Action /The very basic outline agenda for the meeting was:
n Go over history of how “we” got to where we are
n Review proposed Table of Contents
n Review samples of proposed text (to give flavor)
n Discuss some of the issues
It is important to note that the Panel has not yet been sanctioned by TC67 or SC7, although it is thought likely that it will be sanctioned.
An extra item was added to the agenda near the end of the meeting, but is worthy of being included early on as it is important in deciding how we move forward. The extra item was:
n What are the criteria to be used in writing the new ISO 19905-3
The Document Criteria decided in the meeting were:
1. Establish existing best/good practice and document it
2. Do not introduce new requirements
3. Should be independent of unit’s age. Should not exclude a unit because of its age, or discriminate based on age, or previous IMO Code revisions Grandfathered status, but the unit must be within Class.
4. Take reference to the Marine Operations Manual wherever reasonably practicable
5. Refer to other established document wherever possible – do not create new words for the sake of it
6. Leave out operational issues wherever possible and refer to other documents (e.g. riser to riser documents, DP to DP documents).
It is important to note that these criteria represented the views of only those present at this meeting, and may change once a full Panel has been established
The current draft of 19905-3 had been sent out to a representative of all the companies having an attendee at the meeting.
Origins of the draft: The draft had been developed by taking a copy of the Jack-up FDIS and deleting large sections, but trying to decide if the title of each clause was relevant to the site assessment of floaters. This resulted in some clauses being included that did not have an equivalent in current floating MOU standards.
Hull Strength: One example of this that came up for relatively extensive discussion was hull strength. This has been included in the draft ISO, but has not traditionally been part of a floater site assessment. The ISO suggests that the assessor intelligently compares the Marine Operations Manual (MOM) hull design condition to the site-specific 50 year independent extremes and check if it is OK (taking full account that a larger wave does not necessarily lead to higher loads). Some felt such a check should remain in the document, others that there should be no such check
Grandfathering: Many units are grandfathered by IMO and Class. There was discussion as to whether a similar grandfathering would apply in the ISO. It was stated that there would be absolutely no age discrimination; units would not be grandfathered, but would also not be excluded because of age. Units presently operating under grandfathered IMO status, but in Class, shall not be prevented from passing a site assessment evaluation based on age alone.
Design: There was discussion as to if the document would end up affecting design. The answer was slightly mixed. Inherently there will be requests of designers that a new design of unit meet the criteria set out for site assessment of intended areas of operation. But there would not likely be any direct design issues in the document. Particularly there would be no specific hull design issues. Some attendees felt that for floaters, the site assessment criteria should not establish new requirement beyond what already is established in Class and IMO Codes. This will require further discussion in future meetings when more of the draft document wording has been reviewed by the Panel.
Consistency of analysis: One of the things participants wanted to get out of the document was consistency in assessment. It was felt that there was not necessarily consistency at present, and that the proposed ISO would help alleviate that problem. It is possible that this could help “level the playing field” between the drilling contractors. While this would be a benefit, it could not be a stated aim. However, ensuring that all units are consistently assessed should be an aim.
Regulations: The proposed document could help fill a regulatory requirement gap, but there is also a potential downfall with that. If the standard includes items that are not well documented, then the regulators could end up with a set of stringent requirements that increase the work of site assessment, but for no added value. This was particularly discussed with respect to the Hull Strength issue.
Operational Issues: The main operational issue that came up for discussion was concerning the riser, watch circles, disconnect criteria, etc. There had been some discussion before the meeting suggesting that this was an area where there needed to be much better guidance as very little existed. There is some guidance in the ISO riser documents (13624-1 and -2). These documents certainly contain some good material, but it was felt that there were still some gaps, and need for improvement. However, it was strongly stated that the development should be in those documents, and not in 19905-3. (Post meeting note: It transpired that there was an API Riser meeting at Stress Engineering the next day. Jim Brekke, who had been on the Panel that developed the ISO 13624-1 and -2, had managed to find out about the meeting and was planning to attend. John S requested that the location and contact information of the organizer be supplied to him so he could gate crash it. It transpired that this was worthwhile, and there should now be better communications with that panel, thereby ensuring the needs of the site assessor are taken into account.)
DP: Hongbo Shu had sent in some comments from a brief review of the draft and suggested that one area that was lacking in API RP 2SK (and also in ISO 19901-7) was discussion and criteria for DP. There is also a tie between DP operability and riser assessment. It was felt that the current document was not the place to deal with DP as there were other sources of good material. It was stated that John S had tried to get Kongsnberg to attend, but had not been successful. He had not had an L3 contact. It was suggested that IMCA be invited to attend the City U meeting on Wednesday evening at the end of the conference. This seems like an extremely good idea. John S to contact them. The plan is that IMCA are currently the closest to a reasonable set of criteria, and while they may not be ideally suited to MOU, if the current document can reference their material, then it would be much better. This area needs to be researched with IMCA.
MOU Metocean: Currently the metocean for floating MOU operations is in 19901-7 (clause 6.4.2.3). There was discussion as to whether this clause should be moved to 19905-3. It was generally stated that what was currently in 19901-7 should remain there. It would lead to confusion if 19905-3 became more than a road map/reference document.
Submitted Comments on the Document: There had been a few comments received, but Gusto MSC submitted relatively extensive comments prior to the meeting. The Panel Convenor thanks all who have submitted comments, and would request others to do the same. (Post meeting note: Diamond has also submitted comments)
Panel Members: Panel convenor has requested that people send him requests to be on the panel. There are planned to be two levels of panel member: Active member who attends the meetings, and Corresponding Member who reviews drafts and information sent out post panel meeting.
Path Forward: A draft has been developed before the Panel has been officially sanctioned. While this is potentially a good thing, there is little desire on the part of the convenor to further develop the document without input from SC7 that the panel will be sanctioned. Notwithstanding, the plan to move forward is:
1. Get comments on the existing draft, with due consideration to the Document Criteria (see early in Minutes)
2. Panel meeting to go over those comments and decide, at a high level, which should be included and which should be rejected/modified
3. Develop a new draft document that incorporates most of the comments and is “clean”
4. Convene a meeting of the Panel to go over the document at the wording level, trying to catch ISO issues at the same time
5. Submit to panel for comments
6. ISOize the document and final word editing
7. “Publish or be damned” (or something like that along the ISO process, which probably means damnation takes rather a long time...)
1
2
3
4
5 / Action Items
Participants interested in being a panel member are requested to send the request to John Stiff () stating if they want to be active or corresponding members
Convenor to contact IMCA and ask them to attend the City University meeting
Jim Brekke to supply Convenor with a contact at L3
Jim Brekke to supply convenor with DP reference that can be reviewed.
Convenor to append the document criteria to the front end of the current draft before (if) it is submitted along with a NWI Proposal to SC 7. There should also be a note stating that current draft may contain items that will be later removed. / All
JJS
JB
JB
JJS
Page 2 of 6
Meeting Notes for ISO /TC67/SC7/WG7 Panel 53 at BP, Houston, 28th July 2011
Page 2 of 6