1. What are the market forces driving the need for cost cutting and quick turn-around?

The business environment in which we are operating is as tight and expensive as experienced hands have ever witnessed. The price of oil has accelerated the need for drilling and thus more drilling platforms. Shipyards are able to demand a premium for all aspects of their work and time in the yard as drilling companies worldwide compete for scarce shipyard capacity. The global drilling companies are willing to pay whatever it costs, placing us at a distinct disadvantage.

Day-rate and other costs for the vessel are not suspended while the ship is awaiting and undergoing refit. Thus, it is costly to spend additional time updating and revising the vessel design to reduce cost. Yet, a revised design was necessary to ensure the project met high standards of improvement, while still fitting into the prescribed budget given the market environment described above. Quick turn-around times were crucial to conserving scarce funds necessary to successfully complete the retrofit.

 2. Why did the SODV get redesigned?

In the fall of 2006 it became clear that the rising costs of shipyard work worldwide made the SODV design exceed the project budget and that additional funding to cover those costs would not be forthcoming. A complete redesign of the SODV occurred between November 2006 and January 2007 in an attempt to bring the rising costs within project budget constraints.

3. Weren't there plans to "stretch" the ship?

The JOIDES Resolution in its existing hull size is the basis for the enhanced design. You may recall initial plans called for adding a section to the ship, stretching it by about 30 feet, which would have provided some more capabilities than the final design. These additional capabilities included a few more accommodations, some additional lab and science space, additional space for vans, and space for an ROV. Unfortunately, the stretch is no longer an option due to budget constraints. However you are invited to review the revised design that provides new larger science labs and support spaces as well as new two person accommodations for a larger science party. We are sure that you will be pleasantly surprised. Capabilities

 4. Did the Continuing Resolutions passed by Congress impact SODV funding?

The final increment of SODV funding was requested in the NSF FY07 budget request. However, the Continuing Resolutions passed by the Congress impacted NSF’s ability to provide the needed FY07 funding in a timely manner to support the project timeline.

5. Who is the Conversion Management Team and how does it work?

Decisions regarding the SODV performance, budget and schedule at a program level are made by the Conversion Management Team (CMT), which meets physically no less than once a month and weekly by teleconference. Bill Ball of Ocean Leadership,  Mitch Malone of Texas A & M University, and Gerry Iturrino of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University are the voting CMT members. Peggy Delaney of University of California at Santa Cruz and Chairman of the SODV Program Advisory Committee, Jay Miller of Texas A&M University and Bill Wasson of Texas A&M Research Foundation are non-voting members. The CMT has engaged ocean drilling scientific community for advice on trade-offs throughout the design process.

 6. How did the design process encourage involvement from the community?

During both conversion design cycles, turn-around time was of the essence. However the science and drilling communities provided great advice and assistance in spite of these time constraints. The four Conversion Design Teams prioritized needs and provided inputs to the facility layouts. The Program Advisory Committee continually provided advice on the priorities of science, drilling and associated infrastructure. The IODP Science and Technology Panel and Engineering Development Panel provided valuable guidance and advice concerning the project plans and facility layouts. Oversight of the program direction and progress has been provided by the Independent Oversight Committee.