WELCAR 25 Years Later: An MWS Perspective

Written by James Vavasour, Business Stream Director - MWS

WELCAR 25 Years Later: An MWS Perspective 

Introduction

With the 25th anniversary of the Wellington Construction All Risks Policy (WELCAR 2001) coinciding with my own 25 years as a Marine Warranty Surveyor (MWS), I thought it was a fitting time to reflect on my experiences with WELCAR.

It was about two years after WELCAR’s rollout that I took my first trip to London and Lloyd’s. At the time, I didn’t know the difference between an underwriter and a broker, yet somehow, I ended up spending the day in the Wellington Underwriting Box with two legends of industry and key figures in drafting WELCAR. I’ll never forget the moment when a well-known broker arrived at the box, complaining about the extensive MWS Scope of Work (SoW) for a new Truss Spar installation in the Gulf of Mexico. Unbeknownst to him, I had drafted that very SoW.

The underwriter laid the SoW in front of me and asked that fresh-faced 27-year-old self which parts were unreasonable and should be removed. When I replied that I had drafted it and believed it was appropriate and in line with comparable projects, he simply said, “Well, there you have it. James says it’s perfect as it is, and your client is going to have to pay for it!” And they did. The exchange terrifying to me at the time and I was all but certain That I would never be allowed to go to London again.

Now, 23 years later, much has changed. Wellington is no more, and all three of those gentleman are no longer in the market. Fortunately, I am still allowed to travel to London and I am now one of those “been around forever” people, closer to retirement than to entering the sector.

WELCAR: What is it?

WELCAR is a widely used insurance policy designed specifically for offshore construction projects, primarily in the oil and gas industry. It was developed by the London insurance market, led by Wellington Underwriting PLC, to provide comprehensive coverage for risks associated with the construction, installation, and commissioning of offshore energy infrastructure. Essentially, it’s the offshore construction industry’s equivalent of a home and auto insurance policy bundle, but on a much larger scale.

WELCAR: Why Does it Remain Important?

WELCAR remains the industry standard and the benchmark policy for offshore energy construction projects. MWS requirements are often a key part of WELCAR policies, ensuring that high-risk marine operations, such as loadout, transportation, and installation, are independently reviewed and approved. This has proven effective in reducing the likelihood of preventable claims and ensuring compliance with policy conditions. While originally designed for oil and gas projects, WELCAR has since been adapted for offshore wind, making it a critical policy for the evolving energy sector.

Perhaps most importantly, WELCAR set the stage for many of the MWS technical publications produced by the Joint Natural Resources Committee (JNRC) of Lloyd’s related to MWS standards and best practices.

WELCAR: What Does it Define?

So, what does WELCAR say about the MWS? Within WELCAR, under General Terms and Conditions, Section 1 – Physical Damage, you will find Section 15: Warranty. While it doesn’t go into extensive detail, its significance at the time was substantial. First and foremost, the MWS is specifically named in the policy, with several MWS companies listed, three of which, in one form or another, remain dominant players today.

Beyond naming preferred MWS providers of the time, WELCAR broadly outlines the activities requiring technical review and physical onsite attendance, emphasizing our role to “…approve and issue as applicable certificates on the project...” against warranted operations.

It’s important to remember that this policy was written at a time when underwriters took strong positions on what were then novel offshore installations. A global offshore construction boom was underway, insurance capacity was limited, and new technologies were being implemented in harsh deepwater environments. Truss spars, cell spars, extended tension leg platforms (eTLPs), Sea-Star TLPs, and other innovations were emerging. Underwriters understood their exposure, and premiums reflected that reality.

As a result, the 2.5% of the premium allocated as the “survey allowance” to cover MWS costs was considerable. This allowed for, and, in fact, underwriters insisted on, extremely robust MWS SoW. Consequently, MWS companies evolved structurally in the early to mid-2000s, adapting to deliver on large technically complex global projects where fabrication yards across the world played key roles.

WELCAR: Is it Still Working?

WELCAR has certainly formalized key aspects of the Marine Warranty Surveyor (MWS) role within offshore energy projects, but more importantly, it set into motion a series of critical developments. Specifically, it led to the creation of living documents within the Joint Rig Committee (JRC), now renamed the Joint Natural Resources Committee (JNRC), which continue to be periodically updated and expanded.

JNRC Upstream Construction MWS Endorsement, one of the most significant developments stemming from WELCAR. This document expands on WELCAR’s framework by clearly stipulating that coverage under this policy for project activities is conditional upon the MWS company being appointed by the assured and the MWS being selected from an approved panel of service providers agreed upon by the lead underwriter. Furthermore, the endorsement references other key JNRC documents, including the JNRC Upstream Construction MWS Code of Practice (CoP) and Scope of Work (SoW). Perhaps most relevant to this discussion, it formally clarifies three key points that have been debated for decades: it is the duty of the assured to ensure compliance with all MWS recommendations, the cost of the MWS shall be borne by the assured, and the MWS shall be free to consult with underwriters at their discretion.

JNRC Upstream Construction MWS Code of Practice (CoP), the final major document developed to reinforce WELCAR. As WELCAR became the dominant insurance wording for offshore construction, market capacity increased, coinciding with a boom in offshore construction projects. Many underwriters, brokers, and assureds lacked a detailed understanding of the role and scope of the MWS. While leaders like Wellington Underwriting had a strong grasp of appropriate MWS SoWs, other energy teams lacked this expertise.

Recognizing this gap, the JNRC established a set of standard offshore construction MWS Generic SoWs, starting with Upstream Construction. This greatly expanded the technical review requirements, Certificate of Approval (CoA) criteria, and on-site attendance expectations set out in WELCAR.

The implementation of these standardized SoWs essentially turned the process into a “box-ticking” exercise for many underwriters. In the early to mid-2000s, it wasn’t uncommon to see every available SoW item checked across all activities, sometimes leading to irrelevant requirements, such jacket launch and upending included within a TLP project!

It is easy to forget that WELCAR laid the foundation for all of these advancements, addressing gaps in its own Warranty Section 15.

The Society of Offshore Marine Warranty Surveyors (SOMWS), possibly the biggest single shift for the MWS industry in support of WELCAR, had its origins in 2012 with a phone call from a leading underwriter, to an MWS company. By chance, I was in the room with my then-boss when it happened.

The call was prompted by a complaint from a major global transportation contractor to the London underwriting market. They alleged that an underqualified MWS had recently attended a loadout of a jack-up MODU onto one of their semi-submersible heavy-lift vessels (HLVs). The claim was that the MWS was so unqualified that they had added risk to the operation rather than mitigating it. Though anecdotal, the story quickly gained traction among London underwriters.

In response, the underwriter reached out to us for advice. The transportation contractor had suggested that classification societies should be responsible for vetting and verifying MWS companies, essentially acting as gatekeepers to ensure MWS providers met, yet to be determined, minimum standards. However, this proposal carried a clear conflict of interest, as many classification societies had attempted to enter the MWS market for decades. In fact, the nominated class society acquired a major MWS company the very next year.

Recognizing this risk, we agreed that a new approach was needed. The largely inactive MWS Advisory Panel within the JRC began working with underwriters to formalize minimum competency requirements for MWS professionals. This ultimately led to the formation of a not-for-profit governing body to enforce these standards.

By 2017, after five years of development, the Society of Offshore Marine Warranty Surveyors (SOMWS) was formally launched. SOMWS defined four primary categories of MWS membership, broadly reflecting the now-expanded JNRC MWS Generic SoW beyond its original upstream construction.

WELCAR: Where Improvement is Needed

In light of the developments since the implementation of WELCAR, alongside subsequent initiatives to raise MWS standards and better define their roles and associated SoWs, have matters truly improved? While there has been progress in the areas described above, in many ways, the situation has not improved, starting with WELCAR itself. WELCAR has not evolved since its inception, and it fails to reference or mandate the work products that have been created to address its shortcomings regarding the MWS role.

Moreover, WELCAR, specifically "Section 15 – Warranty", is largely ignored by Underwriters, Assureds, and MWS providers when it comes to the MWS SoW. Apart from the fundamental understanding that MWS services are related to a WELCAR policy, I cannot recall any instance in the past 25 years where Section 15 of WELCAR was cited in the context of the MWS SoW. In fact, as it pertains to the MWS, WELCAR has often been overshadowed by the JNRC Technical Documents, which have essentially replaced it. This is most evident on the JNRC Technical Documents portal, where WELCAR is not even featured among the relevant MWS documents. Given that it is absent from the primary repository of MWS guidance documentation, is it any surprise that it is neglected

What’s more concerning is that many clients are unaware of the JNRC's work in this area. This lack of awareness has led to a troubling trend in which clients are creating their own MWS guidance documents. These documents define their own interpretation of the MWS role and introduce their own MWS SoWs, which are often at odds with the standards set by the JNRC. For example, while WELCAR doesn’t provide detailed guidance on the MWS SoW, it does explicitly outline requirements for activities like laying, burying, jetting, rock dumping, and trenching pipelines:

“Certificates (CoA) to be issued prior to relevant load-outs/installations… laying, burying, jetting and rock dumping, trenching.”

In the MWS context, CoAs mean one thing: Onsite Attendance. No attendance, no CoA. Therefore, WELCAR clearly mandates that subsea pipelay requires CoA, which means MWS onsite attendance is necessary.

However, a major operator recently distributed its own Operational Guideline for MWS to several prominent MWS service providers. This document was intended to formalize their terms for engaging MWS providers, which, of course, they have every right to do, as MWS providers are contracted directly by the assured. As noted in the JNRC Upstream Construction MWS Endorsement, “the cost of the MWS shall be borne by the Assured.” However, the JNRC documents make no mention of the MWS Surveyor Allowance against the premium, which is meant to indirectly cover the cost of the MWS, thus leaving Assureds unclear about the mechanism by which underwriters indirectly fund the MWS.

The guideline from the operator made it clear that each project would perform a criticality assessment to determine the MWS SoW. This raises a critical point: the MWS SoW agreed upon is no longer the SoW as defined by Underwriters, Brokers, or even the Operator’s Risk Manager. It is based on what the client deems critical, not what the underwriters, WELCAR, or the JNRC SoW would consider critical. In fact, the guideline suggests that pipelay within normal vessel tension limits should not require MWS presence offshore, which contradicts WELCAR’s requirements.

To clarify, all continuous pipelay design is based on the normal utilization of tensioners, so effectively, it removes the need for MWS pipelay attendance from the SoW entirely. However, problems arise when, for instance, a Vessel Management Team (VMT) issues a last-minute Management of Change (MOC) onsite to raise installation limits in order to avoid abandoning the pipeline on the seabed, potentially to meet contractual deadlines or on-time completion bonuses. The question we must ask, then, is: should underwriters still pay claims on pipelay incidents that occur on projects where the design basis was within normal tension limits? The answer, I believe, is yes.

This raises a critical question for the industry: Are the interests of both parties, Assured and Underwriter, truly aligned with regard to the role of the MWS? Certainly, in this regard they are not.

JNRC MWS CoP in the Context of WELCAR: 25 Years Later

Has the establishment of the MWS CoP had the desired impact envisioned by those who drafted it? It has certainly helped educate major MWS providers about their responsibilities to underwriters and potential conflicts of interest. However, it has done little to support the MWS community in enforcing these mandates, mandates set by a client that will never contract with us directly.

When examined closely, these mandates are essentially the expectations that underwriters have for their clients, the assured, as their contracting party when engaging MWS representatives. Yet, the market has effectively left it to us to enforce these expectations on their behalf, though we are almost entirely at the mercy of the assured. While underwriters may hope that we, as an industry, uphold the Code of Practice, time has proven that we are ultimately powerless to do so. Since the issuance of the MWS CoP, it has only worked to highlight how much worse matters have become since WELCAR was implemented in 2001.

Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) forbidding communication with underwriters are now commonplace between the assured and the MWS, and they are legally binding. Often these are in place without the MWS knowing who the prospective leader may be to flag the issue, and many times, the problem manifests before the risk even makes it to market and before a WELCAR policy is in place. While this issue has been pushed to the market many times over the last 10 years, virtually no progress has been made on how to adequately address the problem, except for refusing accept the NDA. Of course, this spells disaster for any commercially minded company, knowing that the mandate they honor is to a party to whom they will never be contracted to. There is little hope that pushing back will ever be rewarded with MWS contracts on more acceptable terms. Instead, it’s far more likely they’ll be struck from future panels put forward by that client and their broker.

Performance Guarantee Bonds (PGB) are an emerging threat to the objectivity of the MWS. These PGBs are becoming more and more commonplace, with assureds insisting that PGBs be placed against MWS services, often in the order of 20% of contract value and in some case far more. These are insisted upon on the premise that failure to perform for the MWS may have financial implications against the project, and therefore the assured needs some means of clawing back some of that exposure. Effectively, it is an insurance policy against the MWS, paid for by the MWS.

Where this problem manifests in the most obvious manner are in what constitutes “failure to perform.” For example, an MWS withholds a CoA because their recommendations have not been met, and the operation presents an unusual risk to underwriters. The assured can say that the MWS failed to perform in their duties. One swipe of the hand, and the project is now operating on an unrecoverable loss to the MWS, to prevent a loss to underwriters to whom we are not contracted. When faced with this threat, do we expect all MWS companies to make the right choice, sacrificing all commercial consideration on behalf of a client to whom they will never be contracted?

Conflicts of interest are harder to avoid. Many client contracts now come in massive framework agreements with a stipulation that service providers offer Classification and Certified Verification Agent (CVA) services in combination with MWS to minimize overlap between these scopes, thereby building cost efficiencies for the assured. This has long been recognized as being at odds with underwriters’ interests, and as a result, has been expressly forbidden in the MWS CoP. Ultimately, when one provider offers two or more services, it’s because any duplication of effort is eliminated, and that generally eliminates the MWS portion, leaving underwriters unrepresented. CVA, as an example, is a different job. CVAs assess compliance against established technical standards, but the MWS is responsible for the unusual marine phases of a project. Novel phases that often don’t have established operational standards, they are guided by good marine practice and practical experience. That will be lost, and the role of the MWS is lost against those activities.

These are just a few of the challenges the MWS face in what feels like an ever-softening market. I would challenge that any major MWS service provider likely finds themselves at odds, either knowingly or unknowingly, with the MWS CoP as we continue to service WELCAR policies on an ongoing basis.

JNRC MWS SoW in the Context of WELCAR: 25 Years Later

From the discussions around WELCAR earlier in this piece, it’s clear that issues extend well beyond the client-issued operational guidelines for MWS, which often reassess and overwrite WELCAR and the JNRC Detailed SoWs. These challenges don’t just stem from those documents.

A common response I regularly hear from the market is that MWS need to stop "racing to the bottom." This ill-informed narrative is often pushed by frustrated MWS providers who have likely lost a long-standing client relationship or a tender they were well-positioned for, due to “rates alone.” At first glance, this seems a more palatable explanation, but further examination reveals a more complex reality.

The erosion of the MWS SoW continues through both hard and soft insurance market cycles. Examples of this erosion initiated by the insurance market and their clients are plentiful. First in Series CoA, remote attendance for pipelay, and remote CoAs are some of the more prevalent ones. When I came into the industry in 2001, full-time MWS attendance for pipelay with two surveyors offshore to cover 24-hour operations was the standard. Eventually, this requirement was reduced to one surveyor, often justified by installation contractors claiming there weren’t enough beds onboard for two (no joke). I remember underwriters calling me and asking, “Do we really need two people offshore?” As a result, two became one, and one became none. And here we are today.

What’s more problematic is that MWS companies are still presented with a requirement to issue a CoA. These companies are staking their entire reputations on activities over which they have effectively no oversight, and which generate virtually no revenue, an untenable situation in an industry where personal reputation is everything. Personally, I wrestle with the fear that the respect I’ve worked so hard to build over the last 20 years could be shattered by a single preventable claim that happens on my watch, held to a bar that was set at a time when I could deliver services that were leagues above what is possible in the current state of the industry.

I challenge MWS companies that believe they’ve lost work purely on rates to consider whether the real issue was offering the premier services underwriters demand against a substandard contract. Many MWS are forced to win work not by providing superior service, but by tendering in line with an eroded scope of work and unfavorable contract terms, because that’s what the market has allowed. Meanwhile, many of us recognize that we face an existential threat and our appeals have gone unanswered. For decades, companies have been structured around the core principle of offshore attendance, staying true to the original spirit of WELCAR, yet that foundation continues to be undermined.

Even worse, many of the degraded SoW we currently tender now often demand lump-sum bids against weather-dependent operations, a practice that would never have stood in the early 2000s. No-charge mobilization and demobilization times, and all-inclusive rates are also now commonplace. As if the pressure on rates wasn’t bad enough, when rates hit rock bottom, clients ask for them to be all-inclusive, effectively pushing them down even further. The resulting financial exposure placed on MWS service providers puts tremendous pressure on tender teams, on projects that may span multiple continents and years. They must precisely estimate travel, hotel, meals, etc., often in remote locations. These increasingly complex tendering processes are orders of magnitude more complicated than they were just a short time ago.

But unreasonable insurance demands may be the best example of the absurdity of current market practices for MWS. It is not unusual for MWS providers to be contractually obligated to purchase $50,000,000 liability policies against a $500,000 SoW, over 100 times the value of the contract. In the ultimate irony we are sent to Lloyd’s to secure an exorbitantly out-of-scale liability policy so we can serve to protect underwriters’ exposure on the very policies they’ve written and sold to our contract holders. On its face, it feels very wrong.

I remember when the biggest controversy in our industry was that the MWS not being a named assured on the WELCAR policy. How I wish for those days to return.

SOMWS in the Context of WELCAR Today 

As I write this piece, I recognize that I have dedicated the last 12 years of my career working to raise the standards of the MWS profession on an altruistic basis, on behalf of the global underwriting markets, since that call back in 2012. Not only was I a founding member of SOMWS, but I am a previous Chair, and I continue to serve on the Board of Directors (BoD) today. While I believe that SOMWS has helped professionalize the profession I’ve dedicated the last 25 years of my life to, I also realize that the efforts we invest will not be reimbursed by the market we serve.

Since SOMWS was officially launched in 2017, we’ve implemented an extensive and rigorous qualification and screening process, and there’s soon to be a Certified Professional Development (CPD) requirement. Despite the strong push to continue raising the standards of SOMWS and the immense pressure on MWS and MWS service providers to implement SOMWS as a standard, the JNRC still has not mandated SOMWS as a requirement against WELCAR. This, despite the fact that the standards come at a great cost to those of us who abide by these standards to maintain the trust of the market we non-contractually serve.

These standards are now completely out of phase with market pricing. And underwriters, unlike many of their clients, remain invested in raising the standards of SOMWS. But the reality is that the current standards are likely entirely unsustainable.

While underwriters are firm in their mission to enforce MWS standards, the assured, who hold our contracts, continue to want more malleable MWS relationships. As I write this article, a longtime MWS working for a competitor shared a message that they received from the assured after issuing a recommendation to follow what are largely agreed-upon practices for a fairly standard operation. The client's response was telling: they were “happy to change the MWS company if needed to reduce the safety margins.”

Interestingly, and not coincidentally, around the time SOMWS was beginning to take shape, attorneys , both well-attuned to the industry, picked up on the undercurrents swirling through the market in 2012. They wrote an insightful article titled "Are Marine Warranty Surveys Meeting Expectations?" at a critical moment when the industry was abuzz following the MWS complaints from a predominant transportation contractor. The timing of the article was crucial, yet unfortunately, it didn’t gain the momentum it deserved.

Unlike the prevailing sentiment in the market at the time, which leaned toward “professionalizing” MWS, these attorneys took a different perspective, one that has since proven accurate. They noted:

“…the practice of allowing the assured to appoint the MWS, who they then pay for, does not necessarily encourage the selection of the most qualified…”

The significance of this statement cannot be overstated. Their article was published just as that transportation company had underwriters rallying to raise MWS standards, ironically driving less-qualified, lower-cost MWS providers directly into the arms of their clients.

They further observed:

“…where the wrong MWS (in terms of qualifications and experience) is appointed, the process will be more frustrating for the assured, faced with an MWS who cannot keep up technically…” “…the value of the MWS process to underwriters is diminished…”

I would take it even further, the value to the client has also been diminished and continues to erode. At this point, it will not recover. Many clients no longer have an appetite to pay for a service they don’t value.

To illustrate, let’s examine the rates of the only professionals named on the slip who act on behalf of underwriters: the Loss Adjuster and the MWS. Over the past 25 years, Loss Adjuster rates have remained stable, consistently increasing, from roughly $200 per hour in 2001 to around $300 per hour today for senior Loss Adjusters.

In contrast, when I entered the market in 2001, my MWS rate was approximately $185 per hour. Today, it is often half of what it was 25 years ago. This raises an obvious question: does anyone believe that MWS rates would be what they are today if our fees had always been paid directly by underwriters, as they are for Loss Adjusters? The answer is clearly “no.” Now the question should be: “What are we going to do about it?”

The time has come for the London Insurance Market to show the same enthusiasm in responding to the concerns of the MWS community as they did in 2012 in response to an anecdotal account from a single transportation contractor and make meaningful changes to our industry—this time, for those who serve to protect their interests. 

This Isn’t a Problem of Client Education

The suggestion I often hear parroted in the market, that we need to educate clients on the importance of the MWS, is a futile one. Operators in the offshore energy sector are among the most sophisticated in the world. They navigate complex engineering challenges, stringent regulatory frameworks, and high-risk environments with precision and expertise. Their operations demand cutting-edge technology and a deep understanding of both traditional and renewable energy systems. With a relentless focus on efficiency and innovation, these operators continuously push the boundaries of what is possible in some of the most demanding environments on the planet. After 25 years of WELCAR, I am confident they understand the concept of the MWS and its role.

More troubling are the messages we receive from underwriters' clients when tendering MWS services. Loud and clear, the message is communicated that our services are not valued. Perhaps there is no better example than a recent communication from a transmission system operator whose tender package circulated among MWS service providers. As expected, we once again approached the market for help. Below is a direct excerpt from a tender:

“This tender will be awarded on the lowest price because of the nature and the scope of the services and the limited possibility of creating added value within the scope besides fulfilling the minimum requirements.”

Nothing could exhibit their understanding of our services more clearly; we are a box-tick requirement of underwriters. Further evidence shows that assureds travel to the London Insurance Market to secure a policy, not an MWS. It is ultimately the underwriters who want the services of the MWS. And now, more than ever, those services are at risk.

Under three different chairs, including myself, SOMWS has made virtually no progress with their bridge to the client, the Industry Liaison Committee, hoping to address this very issue. The committee is made up of various JNRC representatives and senior-level MWS. Despite six years of effort and numerous attempts, not a single client has agreed to dedicate their time to this effort. It’s clear, it’s time for a new approach.

A New Approach

Twenty-five years ago, just before WELCAR was first issued, my boss and mentor, stood on stage at the International Union of Marine Underwriters conference in Toronto and declared:

“The single best thing underwriters could do to protect their interests is to contract the MWS directly.”

After all, in 1904, when Capt. Pedder, largely credited with singlehandedly founding the MWS industry, oversaw technical assurance and project execution of complex marine operations in London on behalf of underwriters, that’s exactly how it was done.

Yet today, energy brokers and underwriters argue that a direct-to-market model won’t solve the problem. But in the project cargo market, it certainly does. Many MWS companies are now strategically moving away from WELCAR, unless it’s handed to them on a silver platter. The cargo market has become the preferred market. Back in 2001, when I entered the industry, we wouldn’t touch the cargo market because the rates were terrible. They still are. But compared to today’s energy market, the terms are far better.

Cargo underwriters pay directly, often through an escrow of the MWS Survey Allowance. Fees are fully transparent, ensuring MWS companies are paid a fair rate. There are no lump-sum or all-inclusive rates, no PGBs, no restrictive NDAs, and no excessive insurance demands.

Under this model, MWS companies can bid for work with full transparency on the exact value of the survey allowance and the services they provide. A more skilled MWS workforce might command higher rates, stretching the 2.5% MWS Survey Allowance. Meanwhile, other MWS providers might offer broader scopes of work with lower-cost resources. And that’s the beauty of the system, underwriters choose the product they want against the survey contribution their rates generate. Underwriters decide whether experts are needed for the job or if a lesser standard is sufficient. Crucially, all MWS companies bid on a level playing field, competing against a known project allocation for their services. Underwriters simply get different proposals from different service providers against the standard JNRC Generic MWS Scope of Work (SoW).

Using the claims payment model from Latin America, payments can be made at milestone intervals across the project, reducing administrative burdens for underwriters. Otherwise, the relationship remains unimpeded for their clients, much like a Loss Adjuster requesting technical documentation or arranging site visits with an insured. With this model, the MWS Code of Practice (CoP) can be upheld, ensuring our industry, our reputations, and ultimately WELCAR MWS SoW can endure for another 25 years.

In the absence of a direct-to-market solution, SOMWS continues to address many of the challenges we face. Today, I am working with the SOMWS Board, the JNRC, and the current Chair of SOMWS, Ekkehard Stade, to develop a JNRC Generic Standard Contract for MWS. The ambition? To tackle the very issues that plague our profession today. By explicitly addressing these conflicts in our contracts, we take a critical first step toward restoring the spirit of WELCAR and regaining lost ground for our services. This, in turn, will allow us to deliver them with pride and, hopefully, prevent the continued shrinking of the service provider pool that underwriters so desperately need.

Reflecting on my journey in the insurance industry, I vividly recall my first trip to London and walking into Lloyd’s. The relationships and friendships I’ve built with underwriters, brokers, and fellow MWS professionals mean more to me than my professional accomplishments. These connections have reinforced my unwavering commitment to this industry. WELCAR has revolutionized the way insurance for offshore energy projects are approached and it has personally given me access to the market I love to serve. Whatever solutions the market devises to address the many challenges the MWS market faces, let's hope WELCAR will remain a cornerstone of this industry for another 25 years.