1. The MODU code overview

2. What is a MODU ?  Mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) or unit is a vessel capable of engaging in drilling operations for the exploration for or exploitation of resources beneath the seabed such as liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons, sulphur or salt.

3. Reasons for a specific code  Mobile units for the offshore industry are very special ships which could not be constructed as normal ships under SOLAS requirements  Shape, operations, fire protection and or operations of specific machineries  Specific operations like stationary or moving  Working with very flammable or dangerous goods must require different conditions of contruction and management of operations

4. Why a different code of construction and management ?  Main reason: the offshore industry is a complex technology and is rapidly evolving  So the code should be able to evolve also by re evaluation and revew easily and rapidly as necessary  The grand’s father clause applies either

5. Purpose of such a code  The purpose of the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU code), 2009, is to recommend design criteria, construction standards and other safety measures for mobile offshore drilling units (any shape of hull) so as to minimize the risk to such units, to the personnel on board and to the environment.

6.  The aim of the code is to provide an international standard for MODU which will facilitate the international movement and operations of these units and ensure a level of safety and pollution prevention for such units and personnel on board equivalent to that required by the SOLAS and MARPOL conventions.

7. Why only MODU ?  Mobile drilling units are not the only units working in the offshore industry  They are other mobile offshore units (MOUs) which may be involved in any single offshore activity or combination of offshore activities such as construction; maintenance (including the maintenance of wells); lifting operations; pipe-laying and related operations; emergency/contingency preparedness, including firefighting; production systems; accommodations; storage systems; and diving.  Which follows similar requirements initiated by flag and classification societies

8. MOUs do not include .1 supply vessels; .2 standby vessels; .3 anchor-handling vessels; .4 seismic vessels; .5 ship-shape mono hull diving support vessels; and .6 special purpose ships.  Which follows their own SOLAS requirements

9. Historical of MODU code  First MODU code was issued in 1979  Second one was adopted in 89 for application on MODU built after May 91  Amended in 91  Then again consolidated in 2001  To day the MODU code 2009 applies and amendements are in preparation for this year 2016

10. Compare to former 2001 edition: new chapters in the 2009 edition Towing arrangements Anti-fouling systems Drainage and sediment control Alternative design and arrangements Elevating systems for self- elevating units Emergency escape breathing devices Fire control plans Operational readiness and maitenance Visual aids Motion sensing system exemptions

11. MODU code 2009 With futur amendements still in discussion after the Deepwater Horizon disaster

12. contents 1.General/surveys and controls 2.Construction 3.Stabibility 4.Machinery installations 5.Electrical installations 6.Installations in hazardous areas 7.machinery for self propelled units RUSSIAN

13. 8. Periodically unattended machinery spaces 9. Fire safety 10. Live saving appliances 11.Radiocommunications 12. Lifting devices 13. Helicopter facilities 14. Operating requirements RUSSIAN

14. Chapter 1:Surveys and certification/no change  Any MODU is subjected to surveys for issuance, maintenance and renewal of the MODU certificate (valid 5 years max)  In addition, two dry-dock surveys are mandatory during the 5 years period of the certificate  Specific conditions of renewal of certificates apply

15. Chapter 2: Construction  The relevant construction, strength and materials are already specified in the code but after the DWH disaster some amendements are studied for re-enforcing the protection againts blast and specific fire of hydrocarbons  A new class of fire bulkheads or decks has been prepared

16. New class of bulkheads is proposed  "H 60" class divisions are those divisions which meet the same requirements as "A 60" class divisions, as defined in SOLAS regulation II-2/3, except that, when tested according to the Fire Test Procedures Code, the furnace control temperature curve is replaced with the furnace control temperature curve [for hydrocarbon fires] defined in national or international standards*.  Therre is a possibility of »J » class bulkhead (jet fire) bulkhead also

17. Other propositions

18. Portable or other electrical equipment  Better maintenance of portable electrical equipment or other fixed electrical equipmentwhich could have been part of the causes of the blast: not really very new; remember the blast on the chimical tanker « Bow Mariner » due to bad operation of portable torch lamp (change of battery): meaning maintenance by qualfied personnel in accordance with international standards (international electrotechnical Commission)

19. To comment  As we will see later: the ISM code applies to self propelled MODU and in its Chapter 10 criticity of equipment must be evaluated and suitable cautions must be taken: in our case due to the proximity of possible flammable gas from the well, specific automatic closure of air inlet should have been working properly (maintenance/frequent tests)

20.  Protection of esacape routes: amendements of appropriate heat radiation  Fire extinguishing arrangements for the drill floor still in discussion  Equipment in hazardous areas should be treated under the permit-to-work procedure

21. Malicious solution for PIC  The dual commande organizational structure for MODU latched should be abandonned  When the DP system is used as a sole means of position- keeping, the Master must be considered as the PIC at all times

22. This is quite logic  The stupid organization having finally two master on board has some problems and was a main cause of delays in decision making in the DWH disaster

23. Proposed amendement for Resol 1079  Person in charge means the person on each MOU to whom all personnel are responsible in an emergency. This person should be designated in writing (with title) by the owner or operator (in the SMS). NB The pic can be the OIM or the Master. But on unit that use dynamic positionning systems as a sole means of psition-keeping, the master should be designated as the person in charge at all times

24. Action of Fire and gas detection system  In case of units using DP systems as a sole means of psition keeping, disconnection or shutdoawn of machinery and equipment associated with maitaining the operability of the PD system should be based on a shitqdown logic system designed to preserve the inegrity of the well and station keeping capability  Shutdown of grneratros and related power supply equipment neede for the operation of the DP system should be divided into independent groups to allow response to gas detection alarms while maintaining position keeping

25. Size of a crew member for the design of liferafts  LSA standard does not correspond to the Size of typical offshore workers  LSA code uses 82,5Kg for crew member and a seat of 430mmm  Increase of wheight and dimensions for crew member is proposed : 95 Kgs and 530mm

26. consequence  This is not a joke, size of liferafts should be modified or  More lifeboats for the same crew!

27. Training liferaft  Instead of using a normal liferaft for training purpose  It is envisaged to install a clearly marked specific training liferaft for only training; it is in complement of the normal ones.

28. remember  When conditions of training and drills with liferaft are not possible  An alternative solution can be used (see MSC.1/circ 1486)

29. consequences  These propositions bring important structural modifications and will nomally apply to new constructions (a revised MODU code will be issued – could be MODU code 2017 ? )  NB amendements to life-saving appliances could be required also to existing MODU

30. Other Chapters  No modifications expected in the intact stability criteria and freeboard  No modifications for radiocommunications, lifting devices or helicopter operations as well as operations

31. Thank You