BSI Standards , 389 Chiswick High Road, London W4 4AL Telephone: + +44 208 996 7232 Fax: + +44 208 7187

Email: malcolm.greenley@bsi-global.com 1

Our ref: ISO/TC 67/SC7 Date:11 August 2006

Secretariat of ISO/TC 67/SC7 Offshore Structures for Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries To: ISO/TC 67/SC7 P- and O- Member Bodies For forwarding to their National Delegates and to ISO/TC 67 Secretariat ISO Central Secretariat SECRETARIAT REPORT OF THE TWENTY-THIRD MEETING OF ISO/TC 67/SC7 'OFFSHORE STRUCTURES FOR THE PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRIES' HELD AT THE TOTAL OFFICES IN LA DEFENSE, PARIS 10th AND 11th JANUARY 2006. 1 OPENING THE MEETING The delegates were welcomed to the Total offices in Paris, La Defense by Michel BIRADES and Emanuell ENGLEMAN of TOTAL. Jacques DARTOY, Bureau de Normaisation de Petrole (BNPe), also welcomed the delegates to Paris and explained the role of BNPe in France. It was noted that BNPe manage the French Industry input into approximately 600 standards which is a mix of product standards, codes of practice and test methods. Of the 600 standards managed, some 300 are petroleum equipment related. BNPe supports the work of AFNOR in standardization, devoting about €110K of their budget of €860K, to standardization. The financing of BNPe is by a levy from all the major oil companies who operate in France. Regarding standardization Jacques DARTOY expressed his concern with the loss of availability of engineering expertise in the French oil industry. As a consequence there has been a decline in the participation of standardization work. Recognizing the importance of the work of ISO/TC 67/SC 7 to the oil industry, he wished the delegates a successful and productive meeting. 2 ROLL CALL OF DELEGATES IN ATTENDANCE The SECRETARY thanked Michel BIRADES and Total for hosting the meeting. The delegates introduced themselves and stated their representations (see Annex A of this report). 3 ADOPTION OF AGENDA The Agenda for the meeting (N 380) was adopted with the following changes:

• Liaison report from CEN/TC 12 would be taken on the first day as Alain LOPPINET could only attend the first day (10th January 06). • Andrea MANGIAVACCHI would give a presentation on Lessons learned over the first 15 years of developing the SC 7 standards, under item 11 of N 380 • Johan WICHERS will present his report on WG 9 during the first day

Document: ISO/TC 67/SC7

N 386

2

• Canada will make a presentation on “ISO 19900 in Canada” under the WG 3 report. 4 APPOINTMENT OF THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE The following Members were appointed as the Resolutions Drafting Panel: Paul FRIEZE (UK) Michel BIRADES (France) The SECRETARY reported that Graham THOMAS had been promoted in BP and would no longer be available to attend SC 7 meetings. However, he would continue his work as the UK Member of ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 8. The Committee thanked Graham THOMAS for his support and knowledge of the ISO system which he brought to SC 7 and wished him every success in his new appointment. 5 REPORT FROM THE SECRETARIAT The SECRETARY reporting on progress since the Houston meeting in May 2005 and added that ISO/CS have published two ISO standards:

• November 05 - ISO 19901-1 "Petroleum and natural gas industries — Specific requirements for offshore structures — Part 1: Metocean design and operation considerations".

• December 05 - ISO 19901-7 " Petroleum and natural gas industries — Specific requirements for offshore structures — Part 7: Stationkeeping systems for floating offshore structures and mobile offshore units".

During the report period both drafts had also been circulated for FDIS. The SECRETARY added that the CD for ISO 19901-3 Topsides structures was circulated in December 05 as document N 382 and a pre DIS draft of 19901-6 was issued in January 06. Also during the report period, ISO 19904-1 had completed the DIS ballot and received 100% approval from the Members. Referring to the Membership of ISO/TC 67/SC 7, the SECRETARY reported that a new Member has joined the Committee, Qatar, and the ISO/TC 67/SC 7 membership now comprises:

• 18 'P' members: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, UK, USA

• 9 'O' members: Australia, Egypt, Germany, Kazakhstan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain and Serbia & Montenegro.

• 4 'A' Liaison members: OGP, IACS, IADC (Drilling) and MMS 6 REPORT OF 22nd ISO/TC 67/SC 7 MEETING HELD IN HOUSTON (N 376) The SECRETARIAT report of the 22nd meeting of ISO/TC 67/SC 7 (document N 376) was accepted as an accurate reflection of the meeting, subject to the following corrections: Clause 7.1 – page 6 line 8 should read “There will be further liaison between WG 3 and WG 7 ……” and not WG 5. Clause 7.1 - page 6, line 12 delete “API RT 2D” and replace with “API RP 2RD”. Clause 8 – page19, line 2, Total should be included in the list of the companies who are financially supporting the standardization process through the OGP. It was also noted that the action abbreviation (JW) for John WAEGTER and Johan WICHERS was confusing and needs to be differentiated. In future John WAEGTER will be abbreviated to JWa and Johan WICHERS to JWi.

3

Actions Page 2, Item 5 Communications: the action on the SECRETARY to circulate an instruction on how to "turn the system on" was outstanding.

Action: Secretary Secretary’s Note: Since the meeting, ISO Helpdesk has been contacted and they have reset the system to ensure all Members will receive Automatic Notification each time a document is uploaded on the site Page 3, Item 6: Whilst it was noted that Graham THOMAS’S promotion means that he will no longer attend SC 7 meetings he will keep the Committee advised regarding developments in safety critical equipment for offshore structures. Page 5, Item 7.1: David GALBRAITH reported that Canada has submitted a Regional Annex for inclusion in ISO 19902. Page 6, Item 7.1: Partial action factor for extreme environment action - John WAEGTER reported that this action had not been achieved and unfortunately will not be. David GALBRAITH expressed his concern that Panel 2, who are consultants, are unfunded for this work and need a step by step agreed brief for the methodology. John WAEGTER suggested that the email could be used as the brief. Recognizing the importance of this work for WG 3 Panel 2, the CHAIRMAN requested that this action is completed.

Action: JWa/DW & WG3 Panel 2 Page 21, Item 13.1: Maintenance – moving forward. The CHAIRMAN reported the action on him and Frank SLIGGERS has been completed, however he requested that all Members who are oil company employees to continue in canvassing their respective Companies to gain support for further funding.

Action: All Members Page 21, Item 13.2: Repository – David GALBRAITH and Bob WOLFRAM reported that they had posed the question of background documents to their respective WGs but as yet had not had received any response. However it was noted that the information was available in formats such as email and hardcopy and consequently would be difficult to retrieve and disseminate. Members discussed the difficulties of retrieval and the problem of how the information would be interpreted in the future after the current experts had left the Committee. All other actions were considered either completed or will be covered during the meeting. 7 REPORT ON PROGRESS FROM ISO/TC 67/SC 7 WORKING GROUPS 7.1 Report from WG 3 David GALBRAITH as Deputy Convenor of WG 3 presented an overview of the activities of WG 3 and its Editing Panel. a) ISO 19900 General requirements Canada, recognizing that ISO 19900 is due for review in December 2007, has considered future requirements and harmonization and Peter ROGERS gave a presentation to ISO/TC 67/SC 7 accordingly. The primary needs for ISO 19900 are:

• provide general principles for the design and assessment of structures, • give general principles that are applicable to all types of offshore structures globally

4

• specify general principles, applicable to all types of offshore structure materials used (i.e. steel, concrete, aluminum, etc.)

The Canadian review of ISO 19900 which was undertaken in conjunction with other ISO 19900 series standards identified that there should be improvements in harmonization across the offshore structures standards and the review is a good opportunity to implement these improvements. An example of where harmonization improvement could be made was given in that “Exposure Levels”, which are currently given in ISO 19902, should be given in ISO 19900 as they are general requirements and apply to all ISO/TC 67/SC 7 codes.

• Examples of current Exposure Level definitions are:

– 19901-3.2, Section 5.3 – ‘The exposure level for the topsides structure shall be the same as for the substructure and shall be determined in accordance with the criteria given in ISO 19902.’

– 19903, Section 6.6 – ‘The exposure levels are intended to have the same meaning as specified in greater detail in ISO 19902.’

– 19904-1, Section 6.2.1 – ‘…design criteria for a particular floating platform, the concept of exposure levels is introduced in this International Standard and in ISO 19902.’

Peter ROGERS added that “Target Reliability Levels” require alignment throughout the ISO/TC 67/SC 7 codes. Canada recommends that initially ISO 19900 is updated at review to improve harmonization and suggests the following areas are considered:

• Alignment and inclusion of Action Factors, Load Combinations and Target Reliability Levels • Alignment of additional general requirements / criteria that apply to all codes in the 19900

series, and inclusion of these factors in ISO 19900. Inclusion of aligned factors and actions in ISO 19900, combined with eventual revision of other codes in the series to point to the aligned figures in ISO 19900, will result in a greater harmonized series of codes. David GALBRAITH reminded Members of the history of the precursor to ISO 19900, ISO 13819-1 and the brief of WG 3 from ISO/TC 67/SC 7 for the replacement standard was with “minimum reformatting and no technical changes”. However during the conversion into ISO 19900 WG 3 did identify areas such as identified in the Canadian presentation but agreed that these should be considered at revision stage. It was noted that to incorporate these changes funding would be necessary. He also advised the Members that the issue of Exposure Levels was originally a WG 1 debate some years ago. Members discussed at length, the way forward and generally agreed that “Exposure Levels” was an area which should be included in ISO 19900. The CHAIRMAN summarized that in most types of structure the result has been satisfactory without the need for raising safety levels, however, there is an uncertainty with FSPOs and Jack-ups. He concluded that a forced change would be counter productive and recognized that it would be difficult to achieve a single set of values without creating problems. Whist thanking Canada for their proposals, the CHAIRMAN believed that an investigation should be undertaken to establish an indication of scale of savings that could be attributed to a reduction in safety factors. This could be in the form of saving of steel (in tonnes), more relaxed inspection and/or documentation. Jan VUGTS endorsed the discussion but recognized that the discussion should be separated into two issues:

• Review of ISO 19900 – which must be performed • What can be done with reliability/action factors

Jan VUGTS suggested that these would be better served by an industry driven JIP through a Working Group to give the investigation status as a separate activity. It was noted that this work was originally done by IS/TC 67/SC 7/WG 1, with Christian DUMAZY as Convenor and should be performed by that WG.

5

After further discussion it was agreed that SC 7 shouldn’t rush into any changes but investigate how reliability levels can be amended. It was agreed that WG 1 would be reinstated. Michel BIRADES reported that Christian DUMAZY has now retired and agreed to check whether France would be prepared in continuing to lead this WG.

Action: MB Bob FREDERKING agreed with the proposal and agreed to report on the way forward and suggest the scope for WG 1.

Action: RF c) ISO 19901-1 Metocean David GALBRAITH reported that there were a large number of minor formatting type corrections made from the FDIS ballot version plus one figure from the Canadian Regional Annex was improved prior to publication. The document was formally published as an ISO 19901-1 in November 2005. d) ISO 19901-2 Seismic It was noted that the Seismic part was published in 2004. There is requirement to update Regional Annex data for the South Asia region and Malaysia will supply updated information to enable this to be done. b) ISO 19901-4 Foundations Published in August 2003, consequently a review is scheduled for 2008. It was noted that Suzanne LACASSE is the Project Leader and Convenor of this large Technical Panel with the majority of the geotechnical engineering experts based in industry. The CHAIRMAN requested that David GALBRAITH checks whether there is a need for an amendment.

Action: DG Andrea MANGIAVACHI suggested that the scope of ISO 19901-4 should be checked against other parts in the ISO 19900 standard series which may contain information that should be transferred to ISO 19901-4. Steinar LEIVESTAD supported by Jan VUGTS noted that this is an object orientated standard as discussed some years ago and at the time was the accepted way to go. The CHAIRMAN agreed but recognized it is the duty of ISO/TC67/SC 7 to keep an open mind to all possibilities. e) ISO 19901-3 Topsides David GALBRAITH reported that due to the priority of ISO 19902, this part has run foul of the ISO/CS “Automatic cancellation” system. Consequently a second CD, (document N 382) was circulated in December 05 in order to demonstrate progress. The CHAIRMAN added that this may not have been fully understood or accepted that the second CD was an indication of progress. Comments were also requested on the rework of clauses 7.10 ‘Accidental actions’ and 8.5 ‘Helidecks’. IADC have already responded and consider that MOUs are adequately covered by IACS rules. Furthermore they believe that ICAO rules for helidecks are inappropriate particularly for certain states such as Australia, Brazil and Canada. WG 3 understands that the scope of ISO 19901-3 for floaters and MOUs is only applicable to modularized packages (i.e. not hulls or basic structure) and therefore it is not applicable to MOU helidecks. David GALBRAITH reported that the schedule for 19901-3 would be:

• Complete work on FDIS of ISO 19902 • DIS submission in October/November 06 to ISO/CS for publication December 06 • FDIS submission in October 07 for publication in February 08 • ISO publication June 2008

6

IADC recognizes that whilst API RP 2L has served industry well it is not necessarily applicable for all world-wide applications. f) ISO 19902 – Fixed steel structures David GALBRAITH reported that the responses from the Technical Panels to questions raised at DIS have now nearly all been addressed thanks to Andrea MANGIAVACCHI and the WG 3 Editing Panel. It is estimated that a further 8 weeks of concentrated effort is still required to complete all the Technical Panel responses. This is assuming that responses from the Technical Panels are received on clauses 13, 14, 15, 24-26 + Regional information, which are still awaited. It was noted that after this the Editing Panel and WG3 will review the changes by the end of May and all updated text should be incorporated by the end of June. David GALBRAITH will discuss with ISO/CS the possibility of reducing the 5 month preparation of the FDIS. Noting this it is anticipated that FDIS vote will be circulated November/December to enable ISO to publish the full standard by March 2007. David GALBRAITH also noted that as there are so many figures in 19902, these could be submitted before the text; he will check the possibility with ISO/CS.

Action: DG Regional Annexes – David GALBRAITH reported that the North West Europe RA has been much streamlined, although there is some missing text. The RA claims to include German, Irish, Belgian and Spanish waters although there is no representation on SC 7 from these countries. Jan VUGTS recalled that at a meeting in December 2004, only Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and the UK were in attendance. Alain LOPPINET added that CEN/TC 12 meet in February which would provide a good opportunity to ask the European countries to comment. David GALBRAITH agreed to prepare the necessary information by the end of January and send to Alain LOPPINET for the CEN/TC 12 meeting.

Action: DG David GALBRAITH reported that the Canadian RA has been received and will be included in the FDIS. Clause 17 – The membership of WG 3 Technical Panel 4, responsible for the clause on Piles in cohesionless soils, is effectively the same as the API foundation group responsible for API RP2A. The latest version (22nd) of API RP2A includes new text for piles in sand which has been developed over the past few years. It was noted that, if this is not included in ISO 19902, it will be out of date before publication. Therefore for inclusion in the FDIS approximately 6 pages will need to be reworked into the ISO style and format, which Jan VUGTS agreed to undertake. It was agreed that this is included in ISO 19902 Resolution 221 was agreed by members. Clause 6.1.4 – discussion document N 383 circulated in December 2005. It was reported that the long running discussions between WG 3 and WG 7 failed to reach agreement. Both WG 3 and WG 7 project leaders put forward their cases in N 383 giving three options:

• Option 1 – relies on ISO 19905-1 and classification • Option 2 – requires same reliability as ISO 19902 • Option 3 – 3rd way which assumes both standards are satisfactory

After considerable discussion Members favoured option 3 with amendment, to resolve the cross-referencing of jack-up production units within ISO 19902 (see Annex B) Resolution 222 was agreed Referring to resources for finalizing the FDIS, it was noted by David GALBRAITH that funding has been made available for some technical work by BP, Shell and ExxonMobil plus HSE which has enabled the revision of clauses 12, 16, 18, and 20 to 26 (except 22). However further funding will be necessary to progress ISO 19902 to publication. David GALBRAITH added that the latest schedule for ISO 19902 is: FDIS - preparation to be completed by the end of June 06.

7

ISO/CS - to complete the FDIS preparation by end November 06. FDIS - circulated for vote December 06 ISO - published July 07. 7.2 Report from WG 4 - Fixed concrete offshore structures Steinar LEIVESTAD reported that the DIS ballot had received 100% approval (12 Members out of 12 voted positively) therefore in theory this could be sent for publication as it is. However there were some 52 pages of comment covering 289 individual comments which should be considered in preparation for the FDIS. The vast majority of the comments came from Canada, Netherlands, Norway and the USA and were typically on areas such as:

• Coordination with the ISO 19900 family of standards • Terms and definitions with reference to hierarchical standards • General requirements • Action and action effects • Normative references – should be ISO only noting that SC 7 has agreed to reference NS

3473 as the recognized standard since the start of WG 4. It was suggested that if other standards are normatively referenced it would cause problems – such as the Canadian, American and European (Eurocodes) standards.

Referring to the schedule, Steinar LEIVESTAD suggested that the FDIS would be circulated for ballot by July 06 which would allow the ISO to be published in November 06. Bob FREDERKING requested that a Regional Annex for Canada may be necessary to reference the Canadian concrete standard. 7.3 Report from WG 5 Reporting on the progress of WG 5, Bob WOLFRAM commented as follows: a) ISO 19904-1 Floating offshore structures The DIS draft was unanimously approved although there were 700+ comments. These have been addressed by the WG 5 Technical Panels and the Editing Panel. It was noted that WG 5 will meet on the 12th January 06 to review and approve the final document for FDIS. It is expected that the draft FDIS will be sent to the SECRETARY in early February for registration with ISO/CS. b) ISO 19904-2 Tension leg platforms It was reported that API are still completing API RP 2T, consequently it hasn’t been subjected to review by API SC 2, therefore WG 5 Editing Panel are not in a position to assess the amount of work involved in converting it to an ISO standard, however the resource required is expected to be significant. Bob WOLFRAM suggested that an alternative could be to adopt API RP 2T as published with a brief overlay by way of an introduction to ISO similar to the approach adopted for ASME B 31.3. A second alternative could be to extract only the design aspects specific to TPLs and reference the common requirements from ISO 19904-1 and the other standards in the ISO 19900 series. It was questioned whether there is an industry need for this standard given the amount of editorial resource necessary and SC 7 were requested to consider whether the effort is balanced by the need for this standard. Members discussed whether there is an industry need for a standard on TLPs noting that the design is questioned when operating in typhoon regions. It is understood that the delay in API progress of RP 2T is the result of the recent overturning of TPLs in typhoon conditions and consequently until the problems are fully understood it is believed that API will not issue the document. Andrea MANGIAVACCHI advised that transferring the API into ISO style is not simply a matter of transferring the text into a template. After further discussion the CHAIRMAN summarized that there could be no action at present but requested WG 5 to continue to monitor the developments of API RP 2T and reports back to ISO/TC 67/SC 7 at the next meeting.

8

Resolution 223 was agreed accordingly. d) Floating Offshore Storage Structures (FOSU): Bob WOLFRAM reminded Members that as agreed by resolution at the Rio de Janeiro meeting, FOSUs is to be developed as a Normative Annex to ISO 19904-1. A detailed table of contents has been developed. It was noted that ISO/TC 8/WG 3 have been advised of the final scope and the table of contents and a liaison expert has been identified to work on this activity. However work on technical and editing issues has been delayed pending on funding by Japan. c) ISO 19901-7 Stationkeeping: It was reported that this was published by ISO in December 2005 after unanimous approval by Members at FDIS, after the resolution of a misunderstanding with Canada. Bob WOLFRAM added that WG 5 will develop a first amendment to ISO 19901-7 to address the issues raised in the informative text in the 3rd edition of API RP 2SK. The amendment will relate in particular to drag, pile and plate anchor design and vortex-induced motions. It will also include an update on the synthetic rope mooring design based on recent experience. It was reported that WG 5 will reassess MODU mooring criteria based on the results of a JIP which will address mooring reliability and the failures in GoM during hurricanes Andrew (1992), Lili (2002), Ivan (2004) and Katrina and Rita (2005). The “mission statement” of the JIP is to “enhance the reliability of MODU stationkeeping to levels of acceptability to industry, government and regulators”. The scope and objectives of the JIP are to:

• Verify metocean data, variability and directional problems • Analysis of historical mooring performance from 1995 onwards. • Determination of mooring analysis – different rigs and different mooring systems.

Once the recommendations have been included in API RP 2SK, WG 5 will propose SC 7 the necessary changes to ISO 19901-7. 7.4 Report from WG 6 No report was submitted from WG 6 as ISO 19901-5 has been published and will be due for review in 2008. After discussion, the CHAIRMAN requested all Members to send feedback on the application and relevance of this standard to the SECRETARY.

Action: All Members Canada reported that they have implemented the standard and this has resulted in the receipt of some feedback from users. 7.5 Report from WG 7 Mike HOYLE, the convenor of WG 7, updated Members on the activities of WG 7, noting that their last meeting was in September 2005 at City University, London, as reported in N 381. Reiterating the contents of ISO 19905, it was noted that the scope is limited to class jack-ups. The organization of WG 7 includes Seven Panels whose current status is as follows: Panel Subject Clause(s) Normative Informative 0 Preamble 1-5, (6) 99% text, N/A 50% terminology 1/2 Metocean / Actions 7 100% 100% 3 Structures - Modelling 8 95% 90% - Response 10 95% 60% 4 Foundations 9 95% 85% 5 Seismic* 8, 9, 10 50% 45% 10 Acceptance - Global checks 13 95% 60% - Member checks 12 95% 50% 11 Long Term Applications 11 100% 100%

9

* additions to the clauses of other Panels. Panel status - Normative text about 95% complete except for seismic clauses. Informative text averages about 90% except seismic and global acceptance criteria Concern was expressed over lack of participation by the oil companies in the Panel work Mike Hoyle reported that the Normative text of ISO 19905-1 was circulated in June 2005 as document N 375 and as a result 235 comments were received. Thanking the contributors, it was noted whilst they were constructive many were in conflict. The main issues are:

• Some cross-reference definitions keep changing • Comments to be tracked via database

It is anticipated that the next CD which will comprise both Normative and informative text and should be issued in autumn 2006. Referring to matters since the last WG 7 meeting in September 2005, an informative seminar was held during City University conference where Mike HOYLE and Rupert HUNT made presentations with an objective to advise on the latest developments in ISO 19905-1. Although it was considered successful, unfortunately many of the core target audience did not attend. It is the intention to rerun the seminar again possibly in Houston and that the material will be included in a paper for the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE). Noting that some text will require component level checking, the complete document will require benchmarking and as a consequence will require considerable funding estimated at $435K which includes about $200K for editing. Mike HOYLE reported that the Review Panel met in November 2005, however due to hurricanes Katrina and Rita this severely limited the attendance; hence only 3 members attended making the meeting meaningless although the following issues were discussed:

- (i) Some key issues raised by commentators on the normative text - (ii) Seeking common language but not necessarily appropriate to jack-ups - (iii) No incompatibilities between 19902 and 19905, but differences are necessary due to

differing operating requirements. - (iv) Reiterated that it is helpful to highlight defined terms within the text - (v) Overview of status of Informative Annex - whilst some sections are complete others need

considerable attention Further Review Meetings are planned for January, March and May 2006. Mike HOYLE identified the following problem areas in WG 7:

Time for panel convenors and members to undertake work. Lack of funding and the resource required to complete ISO 19905-1.

Issues for WG 7 which are in the pipeline:

• Increase in foundation small-strain stiffness • Make foundation resistance factors less conservative • Introduce option to conduct WSD approach • Expect the assessment of the recent Gulf of Mexico experience will improve

understanding of jack-up behaviour • Some units with gross failures • Number of partial failures • Units damaged which probably experienced weather which was in excess of design.

The CHAIRMAN commented that 31 new Jack-ups are currently on order and as advised by Alan SPACKMAN are not from existing operators. 7.6 Report from WG 8 Arctic offshore structures. In the absence of Denis BLANCHET, Bob FREDERKING reported on the activities of ISO/TC 67/SC 7/WG 8. Membership of WG 8 comprises some 13 countries and it was noted that attendance at WG 8 meetings (8 meetings to-date) has been excellent. The last meeting of WG 8 was held in December 2005 and the next meeting will be held in July 2006.

10

It was also reported that Lawrence FOGWILL has left CSA and Ken CROASDALE will take over his responsibilities as Secretary. The progress of the Working Draft since the last SC 7 meeting in May 2005 noted that three Technical Panels had submitted the missing informative sections, which means that the draft is 95% completed (100% Normative and 95% Informative). The Working Draft has subsequently been reviewed by the WG 8 Member countries and comments submitted to TP0 Editing/Review Technical Panel under the Convenorship of Dr Ian JORDAAN. Unfortunately due to changes in secretariat staff at CSA and the work schedule of Panel Members this took six months longer than originally planned. The December meeting in Windsor was devoted to assembling the review comments and providing feedback to Technical Panels. During this review it was decided to:

• drop the concept of the three parts and revert back to a single part. • develop a new Table of Contents. • feedback and more specific guidelines have been sent to all TPs • new Roadmap developed for next 6 months – consolidated document generated by end

February 06 and Editing Panel to meet mid-July 06 On behalf of WG 8, Bob FREDERKING made a funding request to the OGP via SC 7 for $285 K for technical completion and editing for CD and DIS. Steinar LEIVESTAD suggested that in his opinion duplication of text must be avoided and cited the section on concrete which could be limited to a single line. It was noted that Denis BLANCHET has challenged the Technical Panels to question whether certain inclusions are necessary or should be transferred to other standards. It was reported that the schedule for WG 8 has slipped by approximately one year revising the targets to:

• WD-B July 2006 • CD June 2007 • DIS June 2006 • FDIS August 2009 • ISO January 2010

7.7 Report from WG 9 Marine operations Johan WICHERS updated members on the history of ISO 19901-6 which started as a clause in ISO 19903 and was subsequently decided to reform it as a stand alone standard in 2000. This has involved some 14 authors writing the 18 clauses with a consistency of style and format being provided by a small Editing Panel comprising: Johan WICHERS (Marin), Bruno BONNMAIRE (Doris), Einar ANDENAS (AkerKvaerner) and John RIDEHALGH (NDE). This has resulted in the circulation of the CD as document N 373 in March 2005. Johan WICHERS explained that all comments received on N 373 were taken on board and addressed with the exception of the comments from the Netherlands. The details of the changes were explained but the following still need attention:

• The entire text needs checking for typographical errors • The clarification between Normative v Informative text needs attention • Proof reading by Editing Panel • Consistency check with the other 19900 series standards

Johan WICHERS requested copies of PDF files of ISO 19900, ISO 19902 and ISO 19903 for the consistency checks. It was also requested to provide information regarding instruction on working with the ISO template. Jan VUGTS and some Members of SC 7 believed that a second CD was necessary; however, after further discussion it was agreed that the draft should proceed to DIS. Johan WICHERS believed that the update to produce the DIS draft could be completed by the end of February providing he received the necessary information requested.

11

8 REVIEW OF PROGRESS AGAINST PROGRAMME FOR ISO/TC 67/SC 7 On the basis of the information given during the WG reports, David GALBRAITH revised the ISO/TCC 67/SC 7 Programme of Work N 315 to reflect the current situation. The revised schedule has the suffix Rev 6 (see Annex C). WG 3 Schedule:

19901-1 DIS Sept 03 FDIS Jul 05 ISO pub Nov 05 19901-2 DIS Apr 03 FDIS Jul 04 ISO pub Dec 04 19901-3 - CD (B) Mar 02 DIS Dec 06 FDIS Feb 08 ISO pub June 08 19901-4 FDIS Mar 03 ISO pub Aug 03 19902 DIS Sept 04 FDIS Dec 06 ISO pub Apr 07

WG 4 Schedule:

19903 - CD Oct 02 DIS Oct 04 FDIS June 06 ISO pub Oct 06

(2nd CD May 03) WG 5 Schedule:

19901-7 DIS Mar 04 FDIS Aug 05 ISO pub Dec 05 19901-7 (Addendum 1 - schedule to be determined) 19904-1 DIS Nov 04 FDIS June 06 ISO pub Oct 06 19904-1 (FOSU Annex - schedule to be determined) 19904-2 (New part to cover TLPs - Schedule to be determined)

WG 6 Schedule:

19901-5 FDIS Apr 03 ISO pub July 03

WG 7 Schedule:

19905-1/2 -CD May 05 DIS Nov 07 FDIS Jan 09 ISO pub May 09

(2nd CD Nov 06) WG 8 Schedule:

19906 - CD Jun 07 DIS Jun 08 FDIS Aug 09 ISO pub Jan 10

WG 9 Schedule:

19901-6 - CD Apr 05 DIS Apr 06 FDIS Jun 07 ISO pub Oct 07

Resolution 224 was agreed. 9 REGIONAL AND GENERAL ANNEXES Michel BIRADES gave the background to Regional Annexes and the document of guidance for authors, circulated as N 309. This document was updated several times and the last revision by David GALBRAITH and Jan VUGTS was circulated in 2004 as N 309 Rev 4. It was noted that it is the country/region’s responsibility to provide the information necessary to produce a Regional Annex and not the responsibility of ISO/TC 67/SC 7. Michel BIRADES added that RAs must not reduce the safety levels in a standard but it is legitimate to increase the levels from the standard if the region believes this is necessary. David GALBRAITH suggested that as RA are now included in several standards it is un-necessary to retain Regional Annexes as a separate agenda item. This view was rejected by the CHAIRMAN as this agenda item acts as a focal point to remind Members of the issues. 10 FUNDING ISSUES The CHAIRMAN explained to Members that the method of funding of ISO/TC 67/SC 7 standards is principally from the OGP through a JIP. The CHAIRMAN added that an unprecedented amount of

12

funding has been applied for to the OGP to cover the third phase. Support for the work of SC 7 is limited and currently it is expected that BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Total, Norsk Statoil will sign. It is thought that Chevron will not sign, while Saudi Aramco (although they have not committed) remain a possibility and is being pursued. It was noted that the third phase requires funding to the level of $280K per annum over the three year period (2006 to 2008) The CHAIRMAN advised WG Convenors to contact Don SMITH at the OGP with their requests when funding is required.

Action: WG Convenors 11 MAINTENANCE OF SC 7 STANDARDS Andrea MANGIAVACCHI made a philosophical presentation on the learned experiences of the first 15 years in developing the ISO 19900 series of standards. Observations: Key participants are: ISO/TC67/SC 7, Working Groups (WGs), Technical Panels (TPs) and ISO Central Secretariat.

• Working Groups - responsible for a segment of SC 7 scope, both structural forms & geographic regions

• Technical Panels – provide technical expertise on specific topics, the experts are appointed internationally

• WG & TP - selected from industry experience, previous exposure to standards, but not in creation of standards, and relies mainly on a volunteer approach.

• Technical Panels - experts in great demand, consequently their availability is unpredictable, and this has caused difficulties in attending meetings, difficult to deliver in accordance with set deadlines.

Explaining the process Andrea MANGIAVACCHI added that in the development of a standard

• ISO/TC 67/SC 7 defines scope • Working Group provides high level Table of Contents • Technical Panels produce the draft which is delivered via the project leader/WG.

This has created problems with a typical outcome being: Limited scope documents (e.g. 19901 series), which usually relies on a single TP doing a disproportionate amount of work, but is reasonably effective. Broad scope documents rely on several TPs, the consequences are that coordination is difficult and progress is usually slow. The initial draft, which is usually of poor quality, has overlaps, omissions, gaps and is inconsistent with other standards in the series. Reshaping is often impossible on a volunteer basis, the larger the document the worse the problem. The consequences of this approach are that the creation of an Editing Panel is necessary, who usually create a new Table of Contents and try to incorporate the TP contributions into the draft. This results in the EP redrafting significant portions of the document, making the process difficult and time-consuming. This causes a loss of momentum and focus, as the technology becomes obsolete and alternative national documents are often developed. Andrea MANGIAVACCHI added that the consequences for TPs are that they become inactive for long periods, causing them to lose touch and ownership and no longer respond effectively when needed. Recommendations: It is therefore recommended that an EP is created from the outset, which will define policies, drive the process and monitor progress. The membership of the EP should comprise 3-4 people, who have WG expertise, knowledge of industry, an awareness of ISO rules/development and are available on a dedicated basis for specific durations. The EP should establish the basic philosophy and develop document framework (i.e., detailed Table of Contents - noting that “less is more” and it should be kept simple). Another requirement of the EP is to manage interaction with TPs. For the TPs it is essential that they agree a commitment to contribute all the way, remain active and involved in the process, provide answers to technical queries, review drafts for correctness and completeness, maintain membership and keep in touch with WG/EP.

13

Through the EP there is a need for interaction with ISO CS to achieve better coordination, consulting and communicating as necessary. Also publish a coordinated schedule, noting that drafts should be submitted as complete and correct as possible to avoid last minute surprises. Andrea MANGIAVACCHI added some recommendations to SC 7:

• Revise strategic long-term plan • review document portfolio • revise/create as soon as possible the top-level documents, including ISO 19900 – checking

the levels of exposure, document interoperability, terminology and definitions, and provide guidance for upgrades.

The CHAIRMAN thanked Andrea MANGIAVACCHI for his contribution and questioned whether this was applicable to the Editing Panel of WG 8. Andrea MANGIAVACCHI commented that whilst he is unaware of the membership of the WG 8 EP, it is in his opinion unlikely that the TPs will “sort themselves out” without EP interaction. The CHAIRMAN requested that Andrea MANGIAVACCHI discusses this with Denis BLANCHET to identify any benefits, adding that it will be difficult to fund future Editing Panels.

Action: AM/DB 12. EXTENDED LIFE OF EXISTING INSTALLATIONS Arne KVITRUD presented a paper on the Norwegian experience with reference to ISO/TC 67/SC 2 “Pipelines” and how Norway handles the concept of extended life. In Norway where a fixed production platforms has been in production for 20 years the operator will need to apply for an extension for a further period 5 – 10 years and supply the necessary documentation on fatigue analysis and other assessments to the PSA for approval for the extension. Each case is evaluated by the PSA and consent is usually given for a further 5 years for fixed platforms without too much problem. It was noted that for MOUs extensions are only granted for a few months at a time and for floating structures an upgrade is normally required at the next classification after 15-20 years. On granting extensions the PSA usually request the operator to start considering improvements and upgrades. Arne KVITRUD added that in ISO/TC 67/SC 2 Resolution 319 was agreed requiring a Task Group to be created to look into extended life of pipelines. It was noted that Norway, UK and Brazil participate in this Task Group and that it will prepare recommendations for addressing lifetime extension of existing pipeline systems. 13 ISO/TC 67 MATTERS Cheryl STARK reported that the last plenary meeting of ISO/TC 67 took place in Pretoria, South Africa in conjunction with the World Petroleum Congress in September 2005. In attendance at the TC were 26 ‘P’ Members and 26 ‘O’ members. In the year between the plenary meetings, ISO/TC 67 exceeded the schedule and published 15 standards (planned 13) plus1 Amendment and several corrigenda. It was also noted that ISO/CS (Focus) monthly magazine devoted an edition to highlight the work of ISO/TC 67 and the SCs. Last year ISO/TC 67 was nominated for the prestigious Lawrence Eicher awarded by ISO for excellence and performance by an International Technical Committee. Cheryl STARK reminded members of the top level “living” documents of ISO/TC 67: N 435 Revision 6 - “Policies and procedures” –provides guidance on glossary of common terms used in ISO/TC 67 standards, interpretations, dual references, and the dot/comma decimal debate, derogations from ISO rules, etc. N 654 Rev 7 - “Management systems” – changed rules to delete the Executive Committee (EC). The document also discusses business aspects, resources (people, time and space), contact with ISO/CS N 731 Rev 5 – “Annual Plan” – the wall chart showing the work schedule of ISO/TC 67 and the Sub Committees.

14

Reporting on ISO/CS matters Cheryl STARK stated that ISO have prioritized market relevance and as a consequence have introduced a shortened timeframe for the development of a standard and that an automatic cancellation process will be invoked if there is no perceived movement within a two year period. It was also noted that ISO/CS will not accept a regular revision of target dates automatically. 14 ISO/TC 67/SC 7 LIAISON MATTERS 14.1 ISO/TC 8 Ships and marine technology Bob WOLFRAM reported that he is still maintaining liaison with ISO/TC 8, the limit state design of ships. Comments have been sent to ISO/TC 8 on the DIS of ISO18072. ISO/TC 8 have been advised of the publication of ISO 19901-7 and the progress of FOSU which will be of interest to them. However concern was expressed at the lack of participation by oil companies in the activities of ISO/TC 8. 14.2 CEN/TC 12 Material and equipment … petroleum & gas industries Alain Loppinet, Chairman of CEN/TC 12 reported on the activities of the CEN Committee which has the responsibility of mirroring the work of ISO/TC 67 and its sub-committees. It was explained that all ISO standards are balloted in parallel by CEN and adopted in Europe as EN ISOs through the Vienna Agreement between ISO and CEN. For acceptance under the Vienna Agreement an ISO Committee must have at last 5 European countries participating in the ISO Committee work. In Europe the EN becomes the national standard in all 29 CEN Member countries, therefore the six standards already published by SC 7 will be available as national standards, typically for ISO 19900 is available in France as NF EN ISO 19900 and in the UK as BS EN ISO 19900. It was noted that CEN have been asked to consider bypassing the FDIS equivalent procedure (Formal Vote) to speed up the adoption process. 14.3 CEN/TC 250 Structural Eurocodes The SECRETARY updated Members on the Eurocodes Work Programme of CEN/TC 250. In January a further two parts will be published making the total 32 of the 58 parts in the programme. All the main parts for buildings have now been published, the remaining parts relate to bridges and specialist structures. It was noted that Eurocodes are receiving considerable global interest especially from Asia and Australia. The following Eurocode parts have been published by CEN: EN 1990 Basis of structural design EN 1991-1-1 Actions on structures - Densities, self-weight and imposed loads EN 1991-1-2 Actions on structures exposed to fire EN 1991-1-3 Actions on structures – Snow loads EN 1991-1-4 Actions on structures – Wind actions EN 1991-1-5 Actions on structures – Thermal actions EN 1991-1-6 Actions on structures – Execution EN 1991-2 Actions on structures – Traffic loads on bridges EN 1991-4 Actions on structures – Silos and tanks EN 1992-1-1 Design of concrete structures – general requirements EN 1992-1-2 Design of concrete structures – Structural fire design EN 1992-2 Design of concrete structures – Concrete bridges EN 1992-3 Design of concrete structures – Liquid retaining structures EN 1993-1-1 Design of steel structures – General requirements EN 1993-1-2 Design of steel structures – Structural fire design EN 1993-1-8 Design of steel structures – Design of joints EN 1993-1-9 Design of steel structures – Fatigue strength EN 1993-1-10 Design of steel structures – Material toughness EN 1994-1-1 Design of composite steel and concrete structures – General requirements EN 1994-1-2 Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Structural fire design EN 1994-2 Design of composite steel and concrete structures – composite bridges EN 1995-1-1 Design of timber structures – General rules

15

EN 1995-1-2 Design of timber structures – Structural fire design EN 1995-2 Design of timber structures – Timber bridges EN 1996-1-1 Design of masonry structures – General rules EN 1996-1-2 Design of masonry structures – Structural fire design EN 1997-1 Geotechnical design – General rules EN 1998-1 Design of structures for earthquake resistance – General rules EN 1998-2 Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Bridges EN 1998-3 Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Assessment and retrofit EN 1998-5 Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Foundations EN 1998-6 Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Towers and masts 14.4 ISO/TC 98 Steinar LEIVESTAD reported that there was a meeting of ISO/TC 98 in Ottawa in November 2005 although he didn’t attend. Existing standards of interest to SC 7 include ISO 12494 “Atmospheric icing of structures” and ISO 21650 “Actions from waves and currents on coastal structures” which is at DIS stage. Steinar LEIVESTAD added that other ISO committees of interest are ISO/TC 71 – “Concrete, reinforced concrete and pre-stressed concrete” and also ISO/TC 167 “Steel and aluminium structures”. 14.5 IADC – Drilling Alan SPACKMAN reported the historical timeline for the major changes in the proposed amendment to the IMO MODU code: - Work approved by the Maritime Safety committee in December 2004 - IMO met in London in February 2005 (DE 49) and subsequently a Working Group was formed in

March 2005. - February 2007 (DE 50) anticipate WG draft with a view to publication in 2008. It is believed that

this will probably exceed the original target date by one year. The main changes will be:

• introduction of the use of mandatory language • incorporation of fire safety systems, fire test procedures and life-saving appliances. • guidance to be expanded on casualty investigations • provide detailed provisions for access for inspection & maintenance • residual stability after single compartment flooding for self-elevating units • guidance on anti-fouling systems • harmonize life-saving appliance maintenance provisions • include standards for lifting and hoisting equipment • rewrite of chapter on helidecks and chapter on emergency power • load line calculations for self-elevating units • consideration of new MSC and Assembly provisions.

14.6 ISO/TC44/SC 5 “Welding and allied processes – Testing and inspection of welds” David GALBRAITH as the SC 7 representative on ISO/TC 44/SC 5 had nothing to report. 14.7 ISO/TC 38/WG 21 “Textiles – Ropes cordage and netting” Bob WOLFRAM reported that substantial comments were sent on the DIS of ISO 18692 “Fibre ropes for offshore station keeping – Polyester” which were seemingly ignored. The SECRETARY reported that BSI run the Secretariat of ISO/TC 38 and they are aware of SC 7 comments and will address them. 14.8 ISO/TC 92/SC 4 “Fire safety – Fire safety engineering” The SECRETARY reported that ISO/TC 92/SC 4 have requested liaison with ISO/TC 67/SC 7. It was agreed that David GALBRAITH will provide the liaison to this committee.

16

15 FUTURE MEETINGS OF ISO/TC 67/SC 7 It was agreed that the next meeting of ISO/TC 67/SC 7 (twenty-fourth) will be held in Delft, on the 12th and 13th September 2006 The twenty-fifth meeting of ISO/TC 67/SC 7 will be held in Calgary and is provisionally scheduled for late May / early June 2007. Resolution 225 16 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 16.1 Chairmanship of ISO/TC 67/SC 7 The SECRETARY advised Members that the CHAIRMAN had completed another three years and that, after discussion with Richard SNELL, he was prepared to be re-appointed for a further three years. The re-appointment was carried unanimously noting that there is a strong need to have a senior technical person preferably from an oil company as the CHAIRMAN of SC 7. Resolution 226 unanimously agreed. 17 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS The resolutions (219 to 226) as circulated in document N 384 were unanimously approved by the Members. 18 CLOSURE OF THE MEETING The CHAIRMAN on behalf of all attendees thanked Michel BIRADES and TOTAL for their generous hospitality in hosting the meeting. Malcolm Greenley Secretary to ISO/TC 67/SC 7 Annex A – Attendance list Annex B – Proposal for Clause 6.1.4 for ISO 19902 Annex C – Revised Work Schedule N 315 Rev 6

GreenleM

ANNEX A

6.1.4 Jack-ups A jack-up comprises a floating hull and one or more legs, which can move up and down relative to the hull. A jack-up reaches its operational mode by lowering the leg(s) to the sea floor and then raising the hull to the required elevation. The majority of jack-ups have three or more legs, each of which can be moved independently and which are supported on the sea floor by spudcans. The majority of jack-ups are built for short term operation at different locations around the world. As metocean and foundation conditions vary between locations such jack-ups are assessed for each particular location, see ISO 19905-1. A few jack-ups are purpose built for production operations at a single location, albeit that there can be an intent for eventual reuse at further locations. Two options are available for a jack-up under ISO, these are: 1. design, assessment and operation to the requirements of this document; 2. site specific assessment to the requirements of ISO 19905-1, in such

cases either the periodic inspection requirements of the IACS member or the alternative requirements for long-term deployment in ISO 19905-1 shall be satisfied.

Note: ISO 19905-1 applies only to structures holding valid certification from an IACS member, or equivalent Option 1 above shall be used for a jack-up purpose built for production at a particular location and Option 2 above should be used for a jack-up built to operate in a variety of locations. In other cases, when a jack-up is to be used for an extended period at a single location for production rather than for exploration, appraisal or other short term application the owners and regulators shall apply either the reuse requirements (Clause 26) of this document or the requirements of ISO 19905-1. Where a jack-up is designed or assessed to the requirements of this document some aspects are not applicable, these include the determination of environmental actions and action effects due to dynamic response, structural behaviour and foundation behaviour. The alternative procedures given in ISO 19905-1 may be used in these cases but the procedures shall be modified if necessary to give an equivalent level of structural integrity to that intended by this document. The foundation strength, the foundation preload, overturning, leg chord strength and the strength of the holding system shall be checked in accordance with the requirements of ISO 19905-1. A limitation on the use of ISO 19902 for jack-ups is the strength and ductility of high strength jack-up steels (with yield strengths of 700 N/mm2 or more) for major structural components – compared with yield strengths of less than 500 N/mm2 for other conventional fixed steel offshore structures. The designer of such jack-up units shall take note of the limitations of this document for steels with yield strengths higher than 500 N/mm2 and shall collect additional data to justify the design for such cases.

ISO 19906Arctic offshore

ISO 19905-1/2MOUs - Jackups

ISO TC67/SC7 Programme of WorkUpdated at 23rd SC7 Meeting, Paris, France – January 2006

WG3

WG3

WG3

WG3

WG6

WG9

WG5

WG5

WG7

= draft is within SC7= doc. is publicly available

WG4

2003 2004 2005ISO 19900General ReqmtsISO 19901-1MetoceanISO 19901-2SeismicISO 19901-3Topsides

ISO 19901-5Weight Eng.ISO 19901-6Marine ops

ISO 19902Fixed SteelISO 19903Fixed ConcreteISO 19904-1Floating - MSS

ISO 19901-4Foundations

Document: ISO TC67/SC7 N 315 Rev.6

2009

WG8

2006 2007 2008

ISOMay

Sep

DIS

MarFDIS

AugISO

ISOOct

AprFDIS

Apr

ISO

JulFDIS

NovISO

DecDIS

Apr

DIS

OctISO

NovDISOct

DIS

FDISJan

ISOOct

HoustonCopen-hagen

ISOJul

D NovWD

Rio de Janeiro

AprDIS

JulFDIS

DecISO

B SepWD

FDISJun

NovDIS

FDISJun

Dec

FDIS

FebFDIS

JunISO

JunFDIS

Tokyo,Japan

2006-01-11

ISO 19901-7Stationkeeping

WG3

Mar

DIS ISODec

FDISAug

= systematic review (5 years)

ISOJan

FDISAugC Jul

WDA AprWD

JunDIS

C MayWD

Sep

DIS

AprCD

Paris

19904-2 TLPs: schedule to be decided

B OctWD

E MayCD

C JanWD

F NovCD

Delft

Review

Dec ‘07

Nov ‘10

Dec ‘09

Aug ‘08

Jul ‘08

Dec ‘10

19904-1 FOSU Annex: schedule to be decided

Addendum 1: schedule to be decided

JunCD

JulDIS

Calgary