ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 Site Specific Assessment of MOU’s
Editing / Review Panel
Report on Meeting of 27th, 28th 30th November 2007
17th & 28th at GlobalSantaFe, 15,375 Memorial Drive, Houston, Texas
30th at ABS, 16855 Northchase Drive, Greenspoint, Houston, Texas
Meeting Report by Mike Hoyle
Background and Attendance
The meeting was scheduled during the previous meeting of 19th July, 2007.
The attendees comprised:
Rev 0 - 4th December 2007 Page 3 of 4
Mike Hoyle (Convenor, UK)
Dave Lewis (USA)
Andrea Mangiavacchi (USA)
Pharr Smith (USA) - Part time
John Stiff (USA)
Doug Stock (USA)
Rev 0 - 4th December 2007 Page 3 of 4
ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 Editing / Review Panel. Report on meeting of 27th, 28th & 30th Nov 2007
Objectives / Agenda
Per the forward plan from the previous meeting & calling notice:
1. Minutes of last meeting, matters arising, general information exchange, etc.
2. Status of action items from above and carry-forwards from last meeting where not addressed in the following.
3. Review comments on Draft F with cross-clause implications.
4. Review inputs from the panel meetings during OTC week in May and City University meetings in September.
5. Commencement of formal A-Z ISO-speak editing.
6. Forward plan for the next stages of editing.
Meeting Report
1. Minutes of last meeting, general information exchange, etc:
1.1. Minutes of last meeting
There were no comments on the minutes of the last meeting.
1.2. Information exchange.
P4 had met by teleconference at the start of the week. Mike had telephoned Patrick on 29th and understood that most of the P4 action items have been completed, and a few new ones generated. Patrick had advised that he will be encouraging the remaining inputs with a goal of providing the updated text to the Mike shortly after 14th December.
1.3. Andrea advised that there is an error in API 2INT-MET (the recently issued Interim Bulletin). In sections 4.1.5 and 4.1.6 the expressions for Zg are incorrect. The square roots should only include the numerator of the fraction, not the denominator.
1.4. Andrea advised that Roland Goodman has replaced Andy Radford as Secretary of API SC 2.
2. Action Items & Matters arising from previous meeting:
2.1. Project funding (previous 2.1):
Mike had approach Rupert with a view to agreeing the protocols for achieving this funding. In essence Rupert needs a scope and budget & prefers that work is carried out via his call-out contract with NDCL. He had also advised that he may not be able to fund projects that are not approved before the end 2007. Action: Doug
Dave reported that IADC have awarded Fugro a project to compare the new Houlsby method v/s SNAME for GoMex foundations.
2.2. Issues re ISO CS (previous 2.2)
Mike has again failed to discuss with ISO CS the presentation of symbols and bibliography by Clause. Action: Mike
Mike noted that SC7 had been told that the decimal comma may in the future be replaced by a decimal period. Andrea advised that this is unlikely to apply to this round of 19900 series documents. Andrea will check with ISO CS to see if there are more specific instructions. Action: Andrea
2.3. General edits (Item 2.4 of last meeting)
Use of “extreme storm event” for the ULS condition and change of "assessment load" to "extreme load", in hand.
2.4. Benchmarking (Item 2.5 of last meeting)
The benchmarking task group now includes John Stiff as co-chair with Pao-Lin Tan (chair), Jim Brekke, Yi Li, Dave Lewis, Ward Turner, Rupert Hunt. A meeting has been held, RFQ's for Phase 1 have been issued and two responses have been received. John has requested that the task group register their preferences no later than the following week so that the selected contractor can be advised and schedule the work into his program for the New Year. Action: John
It was agreed that John will check that Rupert/OGP will be in a position to fund Phase1. Dave advised that IADC have indicated their intent to provide 50% of the funding. It was however noted that IADC were thinking that the overall benchmarking process would spread over 2 years. Action: John
It was agreed that the pre-OTC Panel Convenors meeting will review the "problem log" and "suggested changes" from the Phase 1 benchmarking. The selected contractor is to be encouraged to deliver these before OTC, even if the full report is incomplete. Action: John / Mike
2.5. Definition of VDL (Item 2.6 of last meeting)
Updates to VDL terminology in Clauses 8 & 10 to be reviewed and propagated throughout the document during this meeting?
2.6. Review Clause 13 (previous 3)
Dave had canvassed IADC opinion in the revisions to the Consequence Class text, but without response.
Post meeting Note: Dave has since advised that at the IADC Jack-Up Committee (IJUC) Meeting on Thursday there was concern raised about the changes to the matrix. The Executive Committee believed that the matrix had been agreed by IJUC and ISO19905 and did not accept that they are required to change the matrix simply because the fixed platform document had a different one than our document. They also asked if all Matrixes were the same as Dave Lewis reported. Alan Spackman had undertaken to provide as many examples as possible. Dave Lewis was to review this and then get back with IJUC P0 members (Mike Marcom, Pharr Smith). Not all IJUC Executive Committee members have responded.
The discussion is regarding consequence classification - the use of L1 for unmanned C1 platforms, & terminology for critical inventory (oil v/s hydrocarbon v/s oil & sour gas). ISO 19902 now uses "oil & sour gas". WRT consistency of consequence classification with other documents, WG7 and P0 had discussed this and felt the matrix would be workable if the definitions are right.
John advised that, as requested by WG7, he is still working on the number of C1 GoMex platforms in jack-up water depths. The search may produce a large number of platforms designed as C1 but that do not need to be C1. John is concerned that there may be too many platforms in the C1 category (perhaps 400 out of 2600 active platforms plus 1000 idle platforms). Action: John
Post-Meeting Note: John has received advice that 75% of the 222 MMS High Consequence (L1 and A1) platforms are in less than 400ft of water.
Seismic Text (previous 4.3)
Doug reported that the text will be provided either this week or next week.
Action: Doug
Post-Meeting Note: Doug has since supplied the seismic text for 10.7 and A.10.7.
2.7. Actions (previous 5):
· Mike had chased Patrick re the actions expected from his panellists.
· Dave had not yet forwarded the SAGE updates to Mike for inclusion in ISO, but they have been sent to Mike Dowdy. Dave had sent this to Mike on Wednesday.
3. Review comments on Draft F with cross-clause implications.
The general comments from NL, US, US2, etc were reviewed, responses formulated and edits made. Edits included "seabed surface" and "mudline" to "sea floor". Considerable effort was spent on eliminating "load" from the document; a definition of "inertial loadset" was added to eliminate a lot of tortuous wording. The consistent usage of "extreme (storm) event" was checked. Time was also spent updating text on weight & CoG considerations, dynamics, the use of "zero-upcrossing", MPME and more. Actions were identified for Panels 3, 4 and 11
4. Review inputs from the panel meetings during OTC week in May and City University meetings in September.
This specific review was not carried out as most of the larger-scale revisions had already been reviewed during the work on item 3.
5. Commencement of formal A-Z ISO-speak editing.
The remainder of the meeting was spent reviewing the definitions. A number were deleted as they were not used (some as identified in the Draft F review comments and others identified by the ERP). A number of definitions were revised; some were added and it was ensured that other important ones were used.
It was also noted that we need to use "wave-current" or (preferred) "wave/current" consistently. We also need to check for consistent usage of "site" and "location". The usage and definition of "bearing capacity" v/s "available bearing capacity" needs to be made consistent. Action: Mike / next meeting
Noting that P4 intend to switch the usage of F and Q to F=action & Q=capacity, the meeting reviewed our usage, and that of other documents, and agreed that P4's intent is correct:
Action: Patrick/P4
The meeting noted that the requirements to study the Operating Case in 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 need to be reviewed for consistency with our intent and text elsewhere. Action: Next meeting
It was agreed that Mike will include the Sage updates and also Doug's seismic updates in the next version of draft G. Action: Mike
6. Agree actions items, forward plan and date & subject matter of next meeting
The actions noted above were confirmed.
The goal of the January meeting is to ensure that the document is as ready for Phase 1 benchmarking as possible, so that Phase 1 can be initiated at the end of January and completed before OTC. It is likely that the subsequent phases will run past the date scheduled for issue of the DIS in November. Consequently, the DIS may have to be delayed, at least until January, unless the IADC are sufficiently comfortable with the results from Phase 1.
In discussion Dave was of the opinion that the IJUC would register an objection with this intent if the Phase II task of comparing SNAME to ISO19905 with good agreement was not complete. By good agreement, the IJUC would expect the ISO19905-1 answer to be slightly better than, or equal to, that of a current SNAME study.
The schedule of future meetings, starting at 08:30 each day, was agreed as:
January 15th - 18th
April 1st, 2nd and 4th (IADC meeting on 3rd)
June 17th - 20th
The location for the January meeting was tentatively set as Transocean at 15375 Memorial for the first 3 days and ABS at Greenspoint on the last day.
The main tasks for the January meeting will be:
1. Minutes of last meeting.
2. Information Exchange
3. Status of action items from above, not otherwise addressed.
4. Review, and aim to resolve, inputs from the initial Clause 12 benchmarking.
5. Review document for "holes" that may impede the Stage 1 full benchmarking.
6. Continuation of formal A-Z ISO-speak editing.
7. Forward plan for the next stages of editing.
7. Epilogue
The panel considered that good progress had been made. Thanks were due to Pharr & Dianne/GSF and John & Allison/ABS for hosting the meeting.
MJRH 4th December 2007
Rev 0 - 4th December 2007 Page 3 of 4