Report of WG7 Review Panel Meeting of 9Th November 2005

ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 7 Site Specific Assessment of MOU’s Editing / Review Panel Report on Meeting of 7 th - 8 th October 2010 7 th October at Seawell, 11125 Equity Drive, Houston, Texas 8 th October 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 13th-16th July, 2010, and formally confirmed by calling notice of 15th September, 2010. The attendees comprised: Mike Hoyle (Convenor, UK) Doug Stock (USA) Dave Lewis (USA) Jack Templeton (USA) (part-time Friday by WebEx) John Stiff (USA)

Objectives / Agenda Per the forward plan from the previous meeting & calling notice of 15th September 2010: 1. Minutes of last meeting. 2. Information Exchange. 3. Status/close-out of action items from last meeting, not otherwise addressed. 4. Review inputs from P4 WebEx meeting AND other inputs since last meeting. 5. Status of missing inputs. 6 Review remaining International Review and Benchmarking comments.  Tackle matters that ERP can handle (inc review of Drag Inertia etc)

 Update "Key Issues" allocation to Panels 7. Status/Review of TR (if prepared). 8. Confirmation of actions. 9. Forward plans.

Meeting Report

Note: The minutes are in Agenda order. The running order differed somewhat.

1. Minutes of last meeting 1.1.There were no comments on the minutes of the last meeting.

2. Information exchange, etc: 2.1.Do we need a geotechnical gross/net paper to support Clause 9? To be discussed with Patrick. Carried forward. Action: Mike 2.2.Mike had drafted an e-mail intended to ascertain whether there is any interest in a “rig- move” standard, based on draft from Dave. He had sent it to a few of the more Rev 0 - 14th April 2010 Page 1 of 5 Editing / Review Panel - Report on Meeting of 6 th - 9 th April 2010

interested parties (inc. Rupert & Graham Bagenll) for review and to solicit additional addressees. Both Rupert and Graham had advised they will not be able to respond until later in October. The IADC jack-up committee had discussed the matter, however there was not consensus to move forward at this time (although probably more drilling contractors are in favour than against). Action: Mike

3. Status/close out of action items from last meeting, not otherwise addressed: 3.1.Actions from April 2008 meeting (previous 3.2): April 2008 Item 5 Address any initial issues arising from Stage 1 benchmarking. John advised that his action to make the ABS jack-up primer more widely available is in hand, but that it will take time before it can be progressed. Carried forward. Action: John 3.2.Actions from March 2010 meeting 3.2.1. Previous 3.2.2, Previous 3.2.3; Previous 3.2.4; Previous 5.10: Patrick had noted that Ref A.9.3-56 to the ND/OU report for IADC should be updated to a published reference. Some options to resolving this issue were discussed, but no conclusion was reached. A suggestion is to use the original published reference OMAE2002-28085, “Determining Appropriate Stiffness Levels for Spudcan Foundations using Jack-up Case Records”, Cassidy, Houlsby, Hoyle & Marcom) & let Jack deal with the “extras”. Carried forward. Action: Dave/Mike 3.2.2. Previous 3.2.4, Previous 3.2.5; Previous 3.2.6; Previous 5.12.2: Chase the two inputs from Lindita Kellizi (9.4.1/A.9.4.1 skirts and A.9.4.8 Interaction with Infrastructure). Patrick advised that we are still expecting text from Lindita. Carried forward. Action: Patrick 3.2.3. Previous 3.2.5, Previous 3.2.6; Previous 3.2.7; Previous 5.12.3: Provide details of missing references, including A.9.3-1 (Hossain); original action on Patrick. Mike has asked Dave Edwards to confirm the results of his own Google-ing; but gaps will remain for P4 to address. Carried forward. Action: Mike & Patrick 3.2.4. Previous 3.2.9, Previous 7: A few further comments had been received from MSC. Mike to chase GLND and John BASS and GMUS/RPSE. Post meeting note: Action completed. 3.2.5. Previous 4: PAFA input on partial resistance factors (in M026-270-D Rev 0 WG 7 Panel 10 Report by PAF.docx) was discussed. Paul’s argument is that the values used in 19902 were based on Fred Moses calibration of API RP2A LRFD against API 15th (see LRFD commentary) and took no account of subsequent technical upgrades. The API LRFD factors differ for the various failure modes (1.05 to 1.18), however the API RP2A LRFD theoretical derivation gives (rounded) either 1.15 or 1.2 for all modes; the latest AISC used the same resistance factor for tension, compression and bending. 19902 uses the inverse of the API factors, but no account was taken of the effect of the revised formulations. As API (& 19902) accept 1.05 for tension and bending there is no reason why that cannot be justified for the other modes. That we have adopted 1.15 rather than 1.18 for buckling

Draft - 16th July 2010 Page 2 of 5 Editing / Review Panel - Report on Meeting of 6 th - 9 th April 2010

should then not be an issue. We need an agreed précis of the argument to include as our response in the comments matrix. Carried forward. Action: John [ Paul ] Mike had asked Dave Edward’s to review the changes were made with regard to soil buoyancy and the new variable VST. Dave has yet to complete this action. Carried forward. Action: Mike 3.2.6. Previous 6: John had iterated a presentation in apparent/intrinsic wave period with Mike, Doug etc and will give this at the P1-2 meeting in Hamburg. Action: John Various issues had been forward to Don Smith for core P1-2's attention / ongoing update to 19901-1. Patrick had held the P4 WebEx the previous week, with limited attendance. Action: Patrick

4. Review inputs from P4 WebEx meeting and elsewhere (P4 areas were discussed with Jack (Patrick was not available)). The inputs since July from panels and individuals were identified by means of a document compare against the July version, and reviewed for sense, consistency and ISO-speak. A number of edits and refinements were implemented as a result. During the course of reviewing the horizontal limit for step 1 foundation checks Jack was consulted, and it was determined that the basis QV used for QH in 9.3, did not include a Po'.term. This was inserted and Jack is to make the case to P4. Dave Edwards had updated the foundation check Figure A.9.3-14 to account for the comments made by Okky / Hugo.

The meeting revised the definition of QV to make it clear that it represents gross capacity. Mike had obtained and included a VH checking diagram for clay from Dave Edwards. There was further discussion about the Winterstein-Jensen computations reported by Michael Perry & Brad Mobbs. The intermediate results to aid understanding requested by Doug had not been forthcoming. Carried forward to P3 meeting. Action: John for Pao- Lin The following were noted: Mike had a first attempt a go at ISO-ising the draft GoMex annex, which needs review - this raises the question as to whether a contingency case should included for all TRS areas. Action: Dave New C.4.4 - Symbols need to be checked for alignment with main text. Carried forward Action: Mike or P3

5. Status of missing inputs (little change from July; the following carried forward). 9.4.1 / A.9.4.1 - inputs from Kellezi on skirted spudcans needed (see 3.2.4). Action: Patrick Figure A.9.4.1 - Legend for lines from P4 [Rupert?]. Action: Patrick A.10.3.4 - V. Karthigeyan and Jack Templeton updates for radiation damping - being coordinated by Doug. Action: Doug A.12.6.2.6 - PAFA has advised that there is no useful replacement reference to BS 5400-3. A.12.6.3.3 - meaning of F1, F2 from Marshall. Mike had located the source in the 1997 Rev 1 update file by Mike & circulated to ERP & P10 Action: Dave and P3

C.3 Hysteretic damping to be finalised by Jack when study complete. C.4.1 - is P3 happy with updated text? Action: John for Pao-Lin C.4.2 - P3 to resolve query re maximum likelihood v/s method of moments. Action: John for Pao-Lin F1 - Further and updated text expected from ….. Action: Dave Bibliography - Further clarification / details Especially from P4, including:  Martin 2003,  Cassidy, M.J., Randolph, M.F., Byrne, B.W, accepted 4th Sept 2006,  Templeton 2006,  NUS 2005,  GEO/DGI,  OGP,  White 2008,  Leung xxxx. Mike to liaise with D Edwards & Patrick. Mostly carried forward. Action: Mike

6. Review remaining International Review and new Bench-Marking comments received. Further inputs had been received from MSC, but these had not yet been included in the Matrix. There was no time to address the remaining ERP actions in the comments matrix. Post meeting note: Mike has re-assigned a number of these to the panels for Hamburg.

7. Status/Review of TR (if prepared) There was no time to address this topic. Carried forward. Post meeting note: A first draft was made available for download on 15th October.

8. Confirmation of actions. The actions noted above were confirmed. Action: ALL

9. Forward plans. The next meeting, starting at 08:30 each day, will take place on 30th November - 3rd December in Houston at Transocean/ABS. The draft Agenda for the November/December meeting is: 1. Minutes of last meeting. 2. Information Exchange. 3. Status/close-out of action items from last meeting, not otherwise addressed. 4. Review inputs from October meetings. 5. Status of missing inputs. 6. Review of TR. 7. Confirmation of actions. 8. Forward plans.

10. Epilogue The panel considered that good progress had been made. Thanks were due to Seawell and John & Allison of ABS for hosting the meeting.

MJRH 22nd October 2010 Rev 1 1st Novr 2010 - updated for DRL comments of 2010-10-25 (expanded wording re consensus in 2.2 & typos)

Draft - 16th July 2010 Page 5 of 5