2020 Annual Report

t 20r20 QMS Report NOV UK & Baku Rig Technologies – Aftermarket Operations

YEAR IN REVIEW This report provides an overview of the 2020 performance and results of the NOV UK Rig Technologies Aftermarket Operations Quality Management System which includes Baku, Azerbaijan. It details the customer feedback, complaints, internal findings as well as external provider performances. It summarises the status of facility objectives, the QMS KPIs, general improvements made throughout the year, Cost of Poor Quality, process development as well as other ongoing initiatives to strengthen the sustainability of the QMS. Upon reflection, 2020 was a challenging year for us all with the Covid-19 pandemic which led to national lockdowns with some of us being furloughed and the rest having to familiarise ourselves with working from home and in some cases, also integrating home-schooling. Despite these challenges we managed to pull through and remained focused on the task at hand. With 2020 also being one of the toughest years our industry had ever seen with the reduced level of customer demand and the reduced global oil consumption, this resulted in the difficult decision to propose redundancies and restructuring for many business units. Through these redundancies and restructurings, it is clear from the data within this report that NOV Rig Technologies managed to pull through and remain committed to the job at hand, despite the increase or re-assignment in workload. It is not surprising that the main category for our Root Cause Analysis was inattention to task for both internal issues and those raised by our customers. This contributes significantly to the cost of quality which will be a focus area for 2021. During 2020, NOV Rig Technologies worked on a temporary solution where NOV acted as tax agents for imports to allow VAT to be reclaimed. The wordings of the process to be issued to customers was finalised by the Tax and Customs Teams and issued to UK Repair Managers during October 2021. NOV UK Repair began utilising 'IPR management module' in order to handle import and exports. The new application had been submitted at the end of 2020 and it expected that this process will be implemented in early 2021. Some key activities in 2020 included the acquisition of Merpro, Brent Avenue where Rig Technologies adopted the capability of repairing riser and casing products which was new to our workforce, the closure of the Bedlington Warehouse and transfer of their inventory to Badentoy leaving office personnel now working from the Gateshead facility, successful completion of API Q1 audit with the recommendation to certify subject to closure of findings, and the transition to new systems such as Tracker 2 and Orion. Some additional training was provided in the use of systems such as Rig Supplier Lifecycle Management (SLM) where attendees were reminded on the likes of how to search for an approved supplier, a recap on the utilization of Pi to NCR within the PIMS system for reporting and dispositioning non-conforming material and After Action Review for reiterating the benefit of these being carried out. The achievements in 2020 can only be credited to the Staff and Management for their continued engagement and improvement of the QMS. Thanks to all UK & Baku NOV Rig Technologies – Aftermarket Operations personnel for their effective contribution to the improvements realised in 2020 and looking forward to an even better 2021. 2

Contents Customer................................................................................................................................................5 Customer Root Cause Trends ............................................................................................................6 Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) ..............................................................................................................8 2020 Customer Complaints carried over ...........................................................................................9 Customer Feedback Survey..............................................................................................................10 Customer Feedback Responses Jan-Dec..........................................................................................10 Customer Experience Feedback.......................................................................................................11 Service Engineer Customer responses.............................................................................................14 Product Conformity .........................................................................................................................15 Customer Audits ..............................................................................................................................15 Internal.................................................................................................................................................16 Document Review and Released Updates.......................................................................................16 Audits ...............................................................................................................................................17 Internal Complaints..........................................................................................................................18 Internal Root Cause Trends..............................................................................................................20 Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) ............................................................................................................21 Certification Audit – DNV ISO 9001:2015 & API Q1.........................................................................22 Risk, Opportunity, MOC & Contingency ..............................................................................................23 Risk Status ........................................................................................................................................23 Opportunity Status...........................................................................................................................24 Management of Change Status .......................................................................................................24 Contingency Plans............................................................................................................................24 Effectiveness of actions taken to address Risks and Opportunities ................................................25 After Action Reviews........................................................................................................................26 Training Effectiveness Results..........................................................................................................26 QA Survey Feedback Results............................................................................................................27 Supplier ................................................................................................................................................28 Supplier Complaints .........................................................................................................................28 Root Cause Trends ...........................................................................................................................29 Cost of Poor Quality .........................................................................................................................30 Supplier On-Time Delivery ...............................................................................................................31 First Article Inspection (FAI).............................................................................................................32 Calibration........................................................................................................................................32 Databooks ........................................................................................................................................32 3

Pack List Analysis..............................................................................................................................33 Pi to Non-Conforming Material .......................................................................................................34 Adequacy of Resources........................................................................................................................36 GOALS & OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................................................38 Global QA AM Goals and Objectives................................................................................................38 Departmental Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................40 BPA Process Update.........................................................................................................................40 4

Customer In 2020, 35 Customer Complaints were received, this is a significant decrease compared to 2019 where 52 complaints were received. 20 of the complaints were relevant to the UK and 15 for other Global sites. The number of UK based complaints increased compared to the previous year, where there were 18, while the Global complaints decreased significantly from 2019 where 34 were received. The top 3 Customers with the highest number of complaints were: Odfjell - 7, Maersk – 3 and Transocean – 3, the remainder were spread between 16 other customers with 1 or 2 complaints. In 2019, The top 4 Customers with the highest number of complaints were: Valaris - 10, KCA Deutag – 9, BP (Bos Shelf; Odfjell) – 8. Complaints by Customer (>1) 2019 2020 0 2 468 10 12 AIOC Archer Maersk Odfjell PD&MS BP Bos Shelf Capian KCAD Saipem Transocean Valaris All customer complaints received were acknowledged within the two-day target as per the below. 2019 2020 6 4 3 4 2 2 1 0 0 AIOC BP/BOSShelf ARO Drilling BP BOS Shelf AIOC Archer Caspian Drilling COSL Caspian Drilling KCAD Maersk Norse Diamond Dolphin Drexel Fugro NOV Gateshead NOV Singapore PD&MS Transocean KCAD Maersk Odfjell PD&MS Valaris Transocean Valaris 5

Odfjell had the largest number of complaints with 7 from a total of 327 jobs. For the top number of customer complaints see below data: Customers No of Complaints Total Jobs to NOV UK % Complaints: Jobs Odfjell 7 327 2.14 Maersk 3 205 1.46 Transocean 3 124 2.42 AIOC 2 129 1.55 Archer 2 230 0.87 Caspian 2 106 1.89 PD&MS/TAQA 2 24 8.33 Valaris 2 854 0.23 Customer Root Cause Trends The charts below show the root cause category of all customer complaints received in 2020 compared to 2019. Customer complaints received in 2020 fell into 10 distinct categories with the top 3 categories: Inattention to Task, Poor Communication and No or Poor Procedure(s) / Instructions. No or poor procedure(s) / instruction(s) decreased from 15% (2019) to 10%. Inattention to task has risen from 26% (2019) to 33% in 2020, Poor Communication fell from 18% to 13% in 2020. QA had an objective at the start of 2020 to identify the top 3 root causes for 2019. The top 3 categories were: Inattention to Task at 26%, Poor Communication at 18% and No or poor Procedures at 15%. • No or poor procedure - To try to reduce these issues, communication was carried out between Standardization, Engineering and NOV Departments to ensure accurate instruction was available and this slightly reduced the volume for 2020 by 5% to 10%, although only a slight percentage decrease, the number on instances reduced from 8 to 5. No obvious trend by Product or Department from the 3 occasions. • Poor Communication - The Communication issues in UK arose when communication between NOV UK and the Customer failed, this occurred 5 times involving UK Repair, Service and Spares. Corrective actions have been put in place to improve this and there were no issues of communication between NOV and the Customer in 2020. 6

• Inattention to Task - Unfortunately the Inattention to task % has increased this year despite efforts from NOV Departments where incidences further reduced. In 2020 this % rise is mostly associated with 3 Repair and 3 Field Engineering issues. The number of incidences reduced from 18 in 2019 to 10 in 2020. From the 10 incidents in total and 7 from the UK there is no common process, personnel or equipment involved: - o Incorrect frame manufacture – FE o Missing parts from delivery – FE o Software Issue – FE o Incorrect part – NOV Bedlington o Door refurbishment – PCE Repair o Part fitted incorrectly – NOI Repair o NDE failure to spot indications – RFE Repair The target for an RCA to be held remained at 5 days. Only 25% (23% UK & Global Combined) of UK RCA were held within this time frame however 44% were held within 10 days. The average days for RCA is 15 days. Key reasons for delays include parts being returned for inspection, more information being required and absence of key personnel. The shortest close-out for UK achieved in days, which was 17 for 2020 (9 for 2019), and the longest with 106 days (127 for 2019); this was an NOV Field Engineering CAR/PAR involving delivery of parts from NOV Kristiansand, removing this complaint from the overall average days would have reduced the average days to 41. The average days for UK customer complaint close out have increased by 5% from 2019. Average Days to Closure Complaints Closed within 30 Days 70 100 60 90 60 80 50 70 40 43 45 60 31 41 42 50 UK Complaints 40 30 50 53 41 40 20 30 30 10 20 27 UK Complaints 10 0 0 All Complaints All Complaints 2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020 27 out of the 35 complaints raised in 2020 were closed; 16 from the UK and 11 of global origin with an average close out of 45 days for the UK and 38 for Global. The target close-out remains 80% closure within 30 working days. In 2020 30% of UK Customer complaints and 47% of Global complaints closed out within this specified time frame. This shows a significant decrease for the UK from 2020, greater focus required on the close out of complaints from all concerned to ensure more Customer Complaints are closed within 30 Days In 2020, of the 27 customer complaint closure feedbacks requested, 1 completed feedback survey was returned; this was logged as positive feedback. Efforts will be put in with communication to Customers to try to improve this very poor response rate. 7

Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) The total Cost of Poor Quality for all Customer complaints (including global) closed in 2020 was $171,797 which is an increase from $167,288 in 2019. The Cost of UK Customer complaints raised and closed in 2020 was $130,174 this a large increase from the 2019 figure of $39,441. For Global and UK, this is a significant increase considering the reduced number of customer complaints. The top 3 Departments receiving UK Customer complaints for 2020 were Inside Sales, Repair and Field Engineering. Inside Sales had the largest share of complaints during the year compared to Repair in 2019. The Departments with the highest Cost of Poor Quality for closed Complaints were Repair $77,811 ($9,680), Field Engineering $51,666 ($9,420) and Spares with $14,361 ($10,440) (2019 figures in brackets). The large increase in Repair costs was mainly due to Maersk BOP Door repair issue (CAR 27466) at $29,300, Odfjell 6 x U2B doors missing lock rods by Scotvalves (CAR 26726) at $23,707 and COSL corrosion of 14” BOP Bonnet lacking preservation (CAR 26855) at $11,000. Field Engineering increase was mainly due to Odfjell Clair Ridge VDM Lifting tool issue with Manufacture requiring remake (CAR 27154) at $34,156. 8

2020 Customer Complaints carried over There were 8 Complaints (4 Global and 4 UK) carried to 2021. This longest open is PIMS 27935 (Global) with 58 days open which relates to hoses being Supplied to Well Safe Guardian with expiry and pressure test issues. PIMS Title UK / Reason for Delay Age Ref. Global 31st Dec 27935 Well Safe Global Part Numbers at not serial controlled in system, therefore no certs 55 28045 Guardian – Hoses with requested – Awaiting implementation of corrective actions - “All 28146 28197 no pressure hoses over 5 years old from stock will require pressure testing and 28198 cert and 1 in certification” 28245 28255 excess of 5 years old 28262 Valaris – UK Items made at KMS they accept liability, goods returned 48 Items 23/12/2020 for confirmation of issue awaiting results from repair. supplied In addition customer unhappy replacement parts not painted, manufacture investigation ongoing Spares/Purchasing d incorrectly DNOW NL Global Suspected Wrong compound in element, returned item in 45 Badentoy awaiting decision if needs to go back to Houston for analysis – Correct replacement part delivered AIOC Global Suspected incorrect type of material in pump ring gaskets, TESS 37 investigating actual issue if complaint or not, may need PCG Engineering input Fugro UK Late delivery of Gateshead item awaiting response from 37 Gateshead – Got new contact from Gavin Thomson 06/01 emailed – correct item received in Badentoy and shipped to Customer 02/12/2020 Dolphin UK Corrective action to be implemented of -“ Introduction of a Critical 27 area Map for the Rotary Table Adaptor Bushings” – Item repaired correctly and returned to Customer 11/12/2020 Expected resolution put into PIMS by Repair 28/02/2021 Transocean Global Awaiting implementation of the corrective action 24 “ Greater communication between NOV and TOI and NOV Maintenance & Reliability Engineer attending the planning meetings will prevent a repeat of this type of issue” – Houston PCG Transocean Global Awaiting RCA from Houston PCG – Juan Castro and Laura 24 Mayorga investigating, latest email 22/12/2020 requesting more info from QPR originator 9

Customer Feedback Survey At the beginning of 2020, the UK customer feedback survey had been replaced by the Global Aftermarket feedback survey; link to survey can be accessed here. This link is sent to customers encouraging them to provide feedback. Below is a summary of the feedback received for the UK through the survey. 25 Customer Feedback Responses Global vs UK 20 21 19 15 14 12 14 14 13 UK 10 Global 8 10 7 5 55 2 4 1 3 0 22 0 1 11 J FM 00 AM J J A S OND Customer Feedback Responses Jan-Dec 10

Customer Experience Feedback 38 Customer Experience Feedbacks were recorded in 2020, this excludes the Service commendations., compared to 80 received in 2019. This decrease was mainly due to the previous figures including Service positive feedbacks. Please note all commendations are now logged within the CEF module in PIMS and the plaudit log has been obsoleted. All Service commendation received from 2021 will be logged within the CEF. 200 Customer Experience Feedback 150 100 50 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2014 Below is a list of all the Internal NOV and Customer CEFs raised during 2020: 11

12

13

Service Engineer Customer responses Within 2020, the Service Department received the below responses from the Service Engineer Job Reports: - Positive Feedback – 63 - Negative Feedback – 9 - Commendations – 14 Note: Only commendations are raised as CEFs, positive feedbacks such as, ‘Great job on the Clair Ridge Mark’ do not count as a positive CEF. A CEF should be detailed and have a reasonable explanation. 14

Product Conformity Measurement of Product Conformity is a requirement of the ISO9001:2015 standard. QA calculate this through a combination of the total number of jobs vs on time delivery / customer complaints. This then provides a total % of conformity. The target for % of conformity in 2020 was set at 90% with only 50% of departments meeting this. Baku decreased from 88% in 2019 to 70% in 2020, Repair stayed relatively the same (1% increase) and Field Engineering had a slight increase of 5%. Product Conformity 100 99 97 99 100 90 80 88 91 90 70 75 76 70 60 80 50 75 40 % 30 20 10 Service Baku Sales Field Engineering RRE 0 2019 2020 Repair The main causes for the product conformity % being below target for the top three departments were due to the below: • Baku – Out of 154 jobs, 60% of these were late. • Repair – Out of 485 jobs, 47% of these were late. There were also 8 Customer complaints raised. • Field Engineering – Out of 216 jobs, 37% of these were late. There were also 8 Customer complaints raised. Customer Audits Due to Covid-19, there were no customer audits carried out in 2020. 15

Internal In 2020, the UK QMS continued its transition to a Global Quality Management System through obsoleting more processes that have been replaced by global. The Quality Team also adapted to remote working by managing internal audits via desktop and skype which was successful. The Quality department continued to ensure communication was ongoing with Repair through the QA/Repair meeting which was now carried out via Teams. Document Review and Released Updates In 2020, the document types below were reviewed and subject to updates and releases. 11 documents were obsoleted, this was mainly due to the continued transition to global procedures. The total number of Standard Practices updated has reduced greatly over 3 years from 62 updated in 2018 to only 21 updated at the close of 2020, again predominantly due to procedures being controlled by Global. 70 60 62 50 52 40 30 20 26 26 19 21 18 10 15 2 11 0 3 11 155 7 2 0 2018 2019 2020 Context Documents (WIs) Local Quality Work Instructions (WPs) Working Procedures (SPs) Standard Practices (MTSs) Montrose Test Spec. Forms In 2021 QA will roll out the Process Change Management via snack and learn sessions. This is a platform for managing changes to the Global Aftermarket Business Processes. All employees can raise change requests considered to add value or improve the quality of any of the Global Aftermarket Business Processes. 16

Audits In 2020, 83% of scheduled audits were completed. Due to Covid-19, the audit schedule was fully revised in Q2 2020 to suit remote and desktop audits. The audit team conducted 40 Internal Audits out of a scheduled 48; it was agreed that these 8 audits were to be postponed to 2021 due to: • Covid-19 restrictions that were set in place • Equipment not being available in the workshop to allow an audit of the process to take place • Baku audits being combined with UK due to the loss of the Baku QA/HSE Coordinator in early 2020 • Audits no longer required for the QMS Excerpt from Rig Doc#111705316 2020 Internal / Supplier Audit Schedule The RRE & Field Engineering BPA implementation audit did not take place as planned due to the delay in release of the relevant procedures. As a result, we have failed to meet the requirement of API Q1 which specifies the audit of all key processes within a 12-month period. These audits have been scheduled for Q1 2021. The Internal Quality Auditor competency units have recently been updated to ensure a more efficient and comprehensive unit. Thank you to all the internal quality audit volunteers. The commitment shown during these difficult times is very much appreciated and it is with your help and support that NOV manage to satisfy the requirements of our QMS. 17

Internal Complaints In 2020, 44 Internal complaints were raised via Internal Audit, Customer audit, 3rd party audit and employee observation. This is a slight increase from 41 raised in 2019. Out of the 44 complaints, 14 of these were from Customer Audits (carried out late 2019), 7 from 3rd Party (API Q1), 6 from internal audit and 17 from observation. All complaints raised during audits have been successfully closed out in 2020. 8 Audit 24 27 Non-Audit 5 10 17 20 25 30 0 2018 10 17 2020 15 2019 In 2020, UK Repair received the most complaints with 48% of the total, followed by Quality at 18%; a large propotion of these complaints resulted from the Transocean and API Q1 audits. 18

The target close-out remained at 30 days for Internal complaints in 2020 and the % target for closed out within 30 days remained at 80%. Although only 75% (64% in 2019) of Internal Complaints have been closed within the 30-day target, the average days of the complaints closed is 22 (28 days in 2019) days for 2020. The shortest close out was at 4 days which related to Global Quality Development Plans not being assigned to all relevant personnel. The top three complaints with the highest days to closure were: • CAR 27448 at 63 days (the highest complaint was 96 in 2019) CAR raised against Baku Repair regarding the failure to carry out Global Warranty Process correctly • CAR 27146 at 50 days (second highest complaint was 96 in 2019) CAR raised against UK Repair from audit 1075 against the Repair PDD regarding tracker tickets not being updated for job progress • CAR 27673 at 42 days (third highest complaint was 82 in 2019) CAR raised against Quality regarding the Non-Conforming Material progress as significantly more NCRs were taking place than raised in the system. This was as a result of lack of understanding and awareness across the facility of this process. 19

Internal Root Cause Trends In 2020, 43% of RCAs were held within the target of 5 working days compared to 59% in 2019. The reduction in this is mainly due to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic with personnel furloughed and remote working. The top 3 root causes for complaints in 2019 were Lack of Knowledge at 16%, Inattention to Task at 16% and No or Poor Procedure / Instructions at 14%. The top 3 for 2020 were Inattention to Task at 20%, No / Poor Procedures / Instructions at 18% and Practices not the same as written procedure at 16%. Further analysis revealed: • ‘Inattention to Task’ was a result of welding rods not being kept in the quiver as per process; on this instance it was purely missed, an incorrect job number (typo) being entered onto the WRL and the HSE checklist not being completed for Supplier audits, the personnel were aware this should have been carried out however it was missed due to an out of date checklist being used. • No/Poor procedure/Instruction was a result of Purchase Orders being sent to Suppliers with no reference to what standards or specifications to meet and there being no procedure to capture training effectiveness. • Practices not the same as written procedure was a result of the NCR Module within PIMS not being properly utilized and the implementation of Tracker 2 resulting in the Service PDD no longer being in conformance QA had an objective at the start of 2020 to identify the top 3 root causes for 2019; this resulted in QA holding snack and learn sessions regarding Tracker PDM training. It should be noted that there was no apparent factor that lead to ‘Inattention to Task’ being one of the main root causes. Each finding has been determined as isolated and no trend has been identified such as a route card within a PCE Databook demonstrating that no work had been carried out and where work had been completed but not verified, the planners / chargehands were aware that the route card should have been detailed and all paperwork should be verified however in this instance it was missed. 20

Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) The total figure for COPQ for internal complaints in 2020 was $41,271, this is a 40% decrease from the total of $66,215.00 in 2019. $29,035 of this was calculated against investigation time, $7,925 against training and $3,095 against rework. Repair have increased Internal COPQ in 2020 by 29% from 2019. Repair had the highest cost due to CAR 28042 (SBOP NPT fitting leaking at test) resulting in $3,705; these costs were mainly due to rework costs regarding the SBOP NPT fitting that was leaking at the testing stage. The second highest cost was due to CAR 26831 (Missing Ram Blocks that have to been correctly received into Stores) resulting in $2,945; this related to missing Ram Blocks that had not been correctly received into Stores; the store man had signed that NOV received the equipment when in fact the equipment was still with the Customer. 21

Certification Audit – DNV ISO 9001:2015 & API Q1 Periodic Audit during June 2020 was carried out by DNV Auditor and Certification audit during October 2020 carried out by API. See RigDoc#112186661 for full DNV Report details and RigDoc#112957199 for API Q1 Report details. Month / Year Focus Areas DNV - Training & Competency PIMS CAR / DNV: N/A PAR API: 7 x CARs Positive Indications DNV: The training and competency processes were reviewed for offshore support (top drive equipment) and • it was demonstrated that training is effectively recognized for employees in conjunction with competency requirements, appropriate training takes place for competency assessors, records of • competency assessments are maintained and that competency is effectively tracked for the individual • processes. • • Good discussion with technical training where it was established that appropriate controls in place for the technical training of internal and external customers. • • Internal and external issues, interested parties, risk management and risks and opportunities processes are effectively documented and controlled ref Risk and Opportunity • Management, Contingency Planning and Management of Change document WI 004. • Good participation by departmental heads noted for the creation of quality objectives and their • monitoring and closure. Effective controls in place for the handling of all nonconformance raised by the organization i.e. internal audit, supplier NCN, customer complaints etc. It was effectively demonstrated that corrective action properly implemented, and all documentation verified. Timely corrective action taken for closure and all NCNs tracked. The management review reviewed for January 2020 considered to be well documented and to cover all the requirements stated in the standard for inputs and outputs. Good use of statistical analysis and thorough with appropriate conclusions. The organization has made significant improvements with the monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation, for customer satisfaction, conformity of products and services, effectiveness of actions to address risks and opportunities. It was also clear from the samples taken during the audit that further improvements are planned. The implementation of the aftermarket customer feedback survey tool is considered to be very useful. The design process plan clearly identified the aspects of the standard associated with input, output, verification, validation, review, changes and records using Rig Office. Effectively documented and controlled quality management system utilizing thorough internal auditing processes effectively reviewed by a strong management review process. The QMS is well supported by senior management. API: Area for • Use of MS Project for work scheduling Improvement • Gauge tracking system GSM Assets • Access to NOV Global experience • KPI Dashboard • Customer Satisfaction Analysis DNV: • Internal audit planning process could be reviewed to detail the clauses of the standard to be assessed with cross reference to the organization’s procedures and work instructions instead of vice versa in order • to simplify the process for internal auditors (see LOF). The organization may wish to consider reviewing the documented procedure WI004 for the inclusion of • other quality management of change inputs i.e. objectives, internal audit, nonconformance, risks, opportunities etc. (see LOF). API: Some review for the documentation control procedure may be considered beneficial (102843392) for cross reference to the global retention form and section 4.1 regarding approved supplier listing and supplier evaluation documentation. • Consider a review of the NDE Procedures to ensure correct certificate number for level III approver. • Only close of Corrective action once deemed effective, Risk of creating more paperwork. • Reduce KPI for certain areas; realistic targets to work too. • Begin to use any relevant API specification as criteria in internal audit program, i.e. API 16AR 22

Risk, Opportunity, MOC & Contingency In 2020, a total of 47 Risks (25 in 2019), 47 Opportunities (27 in 2019) for improvement and 6 MOCs were raised which is a significant increase from a total of 52 risk and opportunities raised in 2019. Out of this 94 raised, 6 had contingency plans raised against them. There are currently 7 opportunities, 11 risks and 4 MOCs still open in 2021. Risk Status Risks – Out of the 47 risks in 2020, 35 were closed and 12 are still open. The below charts describe where the risks have originated from. 2019 25 13 5 2020 47 22 13 0 10 20 30 40 50 Raised Closed within deadline Closed outwith deadline It is encouraging to see a 74 % increase in risks being raised by employee observation (only 6 raised in 2019). This demonstrates a proactive culture of addressing risks to mitigate the possibility of a non- conformance occurring. The departments involved with the most Risks were: QA with 13 and Repair with 12. A total of 69% of risks raised were closed within the agreed timeframe; a slight decrease from 71% in 2019. The average close out was 45 days which is over a 50% increase from 2019 at 22 days however it should be noted that risks do not have a target date for closure due to the individuality of each risk. See below the risk matrix grading the probability and severity of each risk. Within 2020, there were 9 high rated risks, 25 medium rated risks and 9 low rated risks. 23

Opportunity Status Opportunities – Out of the 47 opportunities raised 38 were closed and 8 are still open. The below chart describes where the opportunities have originated from. 2019 27 4 19 2020 47 29 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 Raised Closed within deadline Closed outwith deadline The departments with the most Opportunities raised were QA, with 16 and Repair with 9. A total of 69% of opportunity raised were closed within the agreed timeframe; this was a decrease from the 2019 at 83%. Though the average close out was 26 days which is a slight decrease from 2019 with 29. Management of Change Status Management of Change – Out of the 6 MOCs raised, 2 were closed within deadline, the other 4 are still currently open. The MOCs related to the likes of addressing the impact of ongoing redundancies on availability of competent personnel, acquiring of Brent Avenue, introduction of new systems, relocation of personnel and operations from Dundee facility to Forfar amongst others. 2020 6 2 4 01 234 56 7 Raised Closed within deadline Currently Open Contingency Plans See below few examples of contingency plans addressed in 2020: Risk / Opportunity / MOC Contingency Plan 253 - QMS Risk - Covid-19 To contact Suppliers regarding audits to confirm if they will accept remote audits - completed 289 - Impact of redundancies on availability of Training – agreement can be implemented where UK competent personnel Training can utilize global training facility resources 296 - Relocation of personnel and operations from Ongoing – to be put in place the Dundee facility to Forfar 24

Effectiveness of actions taken to address Risks and Opportunities Risks Opportunities Large items which contain rubber goods were Utilization of the schedule and cost pert columns identified and Glovia was updated to show within the project risk register for AM Projects. expiry date required. New ERP system will help identify further items requiring expiry Lunch and Learn sessions rolled out to all dates where a BOM is involved. personnel to explain the DNV & ISO Accreditations Tracker PDM training records exported from achieve and competency modules Implementation of a yearly audit of the NDE progressed and assigned / removed if no process from a view of practical side of the longer required. process using a checklist developed by QA Removal of Supplier from 2020 audit PF395 Databook Checklist created to ensure a schedule (Parmley Graham) for Repair due to thorough QA review of the Databook is being the supplier no longer being used – carried out alternative supplier now being used Training process responsibilities - Admin agreed Identification of which British Standards our to update Tracker for Training with request to calibration supplier (Trescal) calibrate to. Finance to close Ticket once WO has been NOV advised Trescal of the decision rules on invoiced; monitored by Training Manager to which they should follow when calibrating ensure compliance NOV equipment Lunch and Learn sessions rolled out to all personnel to give an overview of the PIMS Pricing and Deliveries from NOV Gateshead module are subject to changes - New List Price structure on Anson products applied in Glovia globally designed to maintain revenue/margins from 2019 QMS Covid-19 – Review of the impact this had on the QMS and the workload – Supplier audits were then carried out remotely and internal audits were re-assigned and re- scheduled. Suppliers contacted to ask to send all certification by email rather than hard copy. 25

After Action Reviews There was a 22% increase in AARs carried out in 2020 from 7 AARs carried out in 2019 to 9 carried out in 2020. See below departments who held AARs in 2020: Sample Actions Taken and Lessons Learned • Incorporated a standard statement onto the repair quotes for any elevators that require to be load tested into Compass that extra costs - “Load test may damage elevator beyond repair. Incurred costs will apply if elevator fails load testing.” • Updated the Performance Test Report for RAM BOP Doors to add a sign off for fitting of lock rods. • Sourced more accurate flow meters for testing purposes in the workshop Training Effectiveness Results In 2020, training effectiveness was re-introduced to the management system to align with the API Q1 standard. As a result of this, to demonstrate effectiveness of training, the Administration Department now issue a training effectiveness survey to managers 4 months after a direct employee has recently attended external training (not applicable for industry mandatory regular training such as MIST, BOSIET, forklift training etc.) Results of the 2020 training effectiveness survey are collated and discussed between Training, Competency & QA however no trends, such as problematic training providers, could be identified due to the little amount of training that had been carried out as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. 26

QA Survey Feedback Results QA sent out a feedback survey in December 2020 to managers, supervisors and other personnel QA have had most interaction with to try and identify the areas that required improvement in 2021. There were over 50% responses from the following departments: TESS – 1, Spares – 5, Service – 3, Education Services – 2, AM Projects – 1, Field Engineering – 1, UK Repair - 9 How QA perform in the various quality elements below: Auditing (conducting, reporting,… General Support Activities (adhoc) Complaint Handling (Internal, Customer &… Data analysis for reporting purposes Snack & Learn (Training delivery &… CEF (Documenting & Communication Risk / Opp Process Poor Average 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Good Very Good Excellent N/A Rating of QA on the below: Communication (kept up to date &… Professionalism Accessibility Approachability Knowledge 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Poor Average Good Very Good Excellent QA Assistance during the Covid-19 pandemic: Improvement Opportunities Noted: Increased focus on Certification Continue to review and improve the responsibilities on documentation and data book issues. NOV docs / vendor docs / Databook review involving TRA and Competency dept during RCA (to ensure Competence and Training records in Tracker PDM are reviewed) Getting Certs released from QA has been an issue when required in a hurry. Data books seem to be problematic with compilation of the books which takes up a lot of time. Handle supplier discrepancies and certification requirements in a timelier manner 27

Supplier Supplier Complaints In 2020, 30 Supplier Complaints (CARs) were raised compared to 18 raised in 2019. These complaints consist of 26 raised against External Suppliers and 4 raised against Internal Suppliers. CARs by Year By Origin 40 35 30 30 25 26 30 20 20 18 16 26 15 13 10 10 5 10 7 4 0 0 2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020 Internal External The top 3 suppliers who had most complaints raised against them were NOV Gateshead (7%), Texo (15%) and Scotvalves (19%), the remaining percentages were spilt between other suppliers. In 2019, the top suppliers who had most complaints raised against them were NOV Bammel, NOV Gateshead and Texo. 2 4 4 2019 4 2020 4 4 NOV Bammel NOV Gateshead Texo Scotvalves Texo Orca In 2020, the average close out in days was 32 with 53% closed within 30 days for external suppliers, 33% for internal suppliers and 80% for Supplier audit CARs. The shortest close-out in days was achieved in 2 days and the longest was 89 days due to the time taken to carry out Root Cause Analysis by the internal supplier (NOV Bammel). Only 1 CAR has been carried over to 2021. 28

Average close out in days % Complaints closed out within 30 days 40 93 83 35 30 25 % 20 53 15 34 32 33 25 10 24 20 5 0 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020 2018 External Internal The percentage of complaints closed out within 30 days has decreased for external suppliers yet increased for internal suppliers in 2020. The cause for delays was due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic which meant that supplier personnel were not always available. Root Cause Trends In 2020, Supplier issues showed that poorly defined procedures / instructions were the main cause of CARs being raised. This issue was found to be predominate amongst External Suppliers with Scotvalves being the top supplier with this issue. As showing in 2020 chart, more Root Cause categories have been identified when dealing with CARS than was highlighted in 2019 due to better investigation by both suppliers and QA. The charts below show the Root Causes for supplier complaints for 2019 & 2020: 29

Cost of Poor Quality The Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) for closing both external and internal complaints was $16,427, this was an increase of 57% from the previous year. COPQ 9000 8447 8000 7980 7000 $ 6000 3895 3895 3800 Internal 5000 2018 3420 External 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2019 2020 An objective set for 2021 will involve capturing more costs from various sources and departments to facilitate collating a more accurate cost of poor quality incurred due to supplier issues. Due to the current COVID pandemic, supplier audits were carried out remotely which was a new experience for both supplier and QA however once meeting were set up, the audits went smoothly. The results of these audit still allowed QA to verify our supplier’s commitment to providing services compliant to our QMS. The number of audits scheduled for 2020 was 39 with 17 being carried out. The remaining audits were postponed due to travel restrictions and in some cases, poor supplier technology to support remote audit. Global Supplier Lifecycle Management requested audits are also included in the audit schedule. Below shows the number of CARS raised on suppliers from audit findings. Supplier CAR/PAR Texo 26895 - Internal Non-Conformances were not being raised at source, but corrective actions were being carried out without being documented 26896 - Non-Conforming Product procedure was found not to be available during audit 26897 - Sub suppliers not registered on Supplier AVL 26898 - Failure to carry out QMS audits for 2019, no schedule for 2020 BMT 27917 - Digital Vernier found to be out of calibration 30

Supplier On-Time Delivery Supplier on time delivery (OTD) for 2020 was based on Year to Date (YTD) average of 3326 TO/PO lines placed with suppliers per month. This figure was a decrease of 20% from 2019. The chart below shows the number of TO/PO lines for the last three years. TO / PO Lines 2020 60000 50000 49890 40000 30000 44016 39912 20000 10000 0 2019 2020 2018 The average on time delivery (OTD) was monitored and the chart below shows the various suppliers and their scoring for 2020. The target for OTD in 2020 was 95% however our suppliers did not achieve this. The supplier with highest average was Holland with a total of 94% with Anson coming in at 51%. Further information can be obtained from the purchasing department. SVG Average OTD % 2020 80%82% 86% KRS 59% 67% 88% Holland 91%939%4% Houston 51% 676%8% 899%0%92% Anson(GH) Local 83% 90%92% 2018 2019 2020 31

First Article Inspection (FAI) The FAI process was moved from a manual system into an electronic system in 2020, the Warehouse Receipts Log (WRL), making this more efficient for all involved in the process. There were 0 FAIs carried out which was mainly due to the impact of COVID. A main cause for lack of FAIs being carried out in 2020 was due to NOV Rig Technologies utilizing our in-house capability more and less work sent to suppliers. Calibration The calibration process has been running adequately in 2020 with calibration coordinators now fully trained and running AIMS as their main database for equipment. AIMS is also used by the RRE Department as a source for carrying out preventive maintenance on their equipment, whether offshore or in storage. A few changes were implemented to the calibration system, these were the introduction of a bar code scanner for checking in and out equipment and tablets which allow the calibrated equipment to be registered against a project. Plans are in progress by Houston to upgrade certain modules within AIMS and QA will be monitoring these changes to align with these developments. In 2020, 8 out of 551 items of measuring equipment failed calibration; this was mainly due to equipment age and condition and in most case, these were scrapped due to being uneconomical to repair. Databooks There was a 12% increase in the number of books issued to customers in 2020 based on amount sent in 2019 needed for repair and overhaul of equipment or new manufacture. The most likely reason for this increase is due to the increase in number of projects requiring data books especially within the PCE department. Databooks by Year 2020 248 2019 218 2018 117 32

120 114 Databook by Department Comparision 2019 - 2020 100 80 2020 66 2019 60 51 43 40 26 25 30 24 18 14 18 1311 20 4 2 10 0 1 0 PCE COE 5 Mission FE RFE RHT Baku AM NOI RRE PROJECTS Pack List Analysis A total of 2723 packlists were requested from Badentoy in 2020 which was a significant increase of 23% from 2019. After consulting Sales, it was found that the request for lot-controlled item as well as serial-controlled item certification was a good indicator to show this increase. It should be noted that the number of pack lists requested does not equal the number the total of certifications sourced by QA which was significantly higher. Packlist rasied by year 3000 1184 2106 2723 2500 2018 2019 2020 2000 1500 1000 500 0 33

Pi to Non-Conforming Material In order to align with the Global directive whereby NCRs should be used in order to capture issues externally and internally and to also aid in gathering costs of poor quality. PIs were screened by QA and where relevant promoted to the applicable module within PIMS. A total of 96 PIs was raised in 2020 which is a 69% decrease from 2019. Out of this total 50 were promoted to NCR. Pi raised by years PIs Promoted - 2020 217 304 96 50 2018 2019 2020 38 8 PI PROMOTED INTO NCRS PI PROMOTED INTO CARS PI CLOSED OR CANCELLED The below charts show the reason for PIs being raised in 2020, going forward defect codes found in PIMS modules will be used to better record actual reasons rather than the general reasons currently used. Disposition categories are defined from available drop down menus with the PIMS NCR and CAR modules. When creating a NCR the originator will state the issue and in some instances assign a defect category. Once a dispostion responsible has been assigned they will determine what is to be done with the item/equipment and will assign a category from the available drop down menu , This could be anything from Scrap to Return to Vendor. 34

Out of the 50 NCRs from PIs raised in 2020, 3 NCRs have been carried to 2021. 35

Adequacy of Resources People – NOV Aftermarket Rig Technologies - UK Aftermarket Operations regularly reviews, determine and provide the personnel necessary for the effective implementation of its quality management system and for the operation and control of its processes. These reviews take place at least monthly during the Operations Management meeting where utilization of resources is established KPI for departments. NOV consider general requirements by ensuring plans are in place for determining the size of workforce needs and financial / capex planning. MOC-289 was raised during 2020 to address the impact of redundancies on availability of competent personnel due to the restructuring of the business. This MOC is currently ongoing and contingency plans are put in place as necessary. Infrastructure - buildings and associated utilities; equipment, including hardware and software; information and communication technology and transportation resources; were found to be adequate and maintained in 2020. NOV Rig Technologies had 4 major infrastructure changes in 2020 as noted below: • Acquisition of facility at Brent Avenue. This has increased the NOV Montrose Repair workshops capabilities through the adoption of Riser and Casing equipment. As a result of this move, numerous departments moved offices resulting in the portacabins at Forties Road being removed. From this move, this resulted in the Broomfield storage facility being closed. Efforts are in place to certify this facility to ISO 9001 as well as API Q1 • Acquisition of the Forfar facility – Though the office will not be occupied till end of Q1 2021. Plans are ongoing to set up the new facility and accommodate the office move • The closure of the Bedlington Warehouse and transfer of their inventory to Badentoy leaving office personnel now working from the Gateshead facility • Multiple software and systems being implemented to facilitate a more effective and efficient work process such as Orion, Tracker 2, Oracle, Process Change Management system and the GSM Calibration barcoding system Environment for the operation of processes; a suitable environment can be a combination of human and physical factors, such as social, phycological and physical: • The physical environment is also managed by the dedicated personnel within each facility to ensure that the temperature, heat, humidity, airflow, light, hygiene and noise are suitable for the employees and the equipment alike. Employees are encouraged to notify their supervisors and raise observation cards where they have concerns on any of these factors. The management and close out of observation cards are managed by the HSE department Monitoring and measuring resources: – UK NOV Aftermarket provide the resources needed to ensure valid and reliable results when monitoring or measuring is used to verify the conformity of products and services to requirements. The main resource utilized for monitoring and measurements are external Calibration companies. Details of progress in calibration is noted in the calibration section of this report. Organizational Knowledge: – UK NOV Aftermarket determines the knowledge necessary for its operations. These are determined during appraisal and regularly throughout the year. During 2020, each department set out their competency goals; 6 of the departments (40%) met or exceeded the target out of 15 departments. Numerous departments amended their goals during 2020 to take into the consideration the reduction of headcount. 36

See below the original goal vs amended goal vs target achieved. Competency Targets 30 25 26 Original 24 Goal 20 2121 Amended Goal 15 1819 18 Total 15 1213 Achieved 10 9 88 10 8 12 622 333 664 2 88 5 764 61 663 777 7 100 530 530 0 37

GOALS & OBJECTIVES Global QA AM Goals and Objectives Areas Goals& Objectives UK Status 1 On Time Delivery Goal: NOV - 90% • Repair = 53% 2 • Service = 95% or 5% increase over previous year performance if • Field Engineering = 63% above 75% • Spares = 80% • RRE = 100% Note: Per shipped line in relation to Sales order • Baku Repair = 40% original promised date. Average all external = 84% Goal: Supplier – 95% Additional Goals & Metrics to be defined with integration in the SLM tool. 3 Cost of Quality Develop & Implement a Log, tracking & Monitoring Put on hold due to COVID tool for the Cost of Quality for all Repair & Service Facilities. – End Q1 Collect and Monitor the data in Q1 & Q2 with the objective of setting a target for the remaining of the year at the end of Q2. 4 Internal Audit Result of 2020 internal audit cycle to be above 85% • Global Documents = 100% performance (Global Check-List grading) with no • QMS = 100% individual sections (from the check-sheet) below • Product & Service Realization = 70%. 89.4% • Contract Review = 100% • Design Control = 100% • Purchasing = 60% • Measurement, Analysis & Improvement = 100% Total = 90.5% 5 NCR to NCR Open to Disposition average time in 5 days or Average of 15 days (33% completed Disposition less. within 5 days) 6 Customer One improvement initiative, completed during the 38 Opportunities for Improvement raised Experience year, driven based on received customer feedback & closed Feedback (CEF) from 2019 (Feedback from Internal or External Customers) 7 Corrective Action / 14 Days from CAR creation to RCA approval • Customer = 16 Root Cause • Internal = 7 Analysis RCA time (14 + 30 Days for implementation (44 • Supplier = 26 days) • Combined = 16 days • Customer = 42 8 Documentation Implementation of the Quality Plans program (ref. • Internal = 22 Initiative BPA and Global Standardization procedures) • Supplier = 27 • Combined = 30 days Ongoing 9 Directive No Re-Work orders open without an NCR created 15 jobs in 2020 with rework but no NCR For more information on the goals & Objectives, please refer to Rig Doc # 101795435. 38

NOV UK Rig Technologies AM Goals & Objectives Below is an excerpt of the NOV UK Rig Technologies AM Goals & Objectives. These objectives are established by the Business Line managers at the beginning of the year and are monitored and updated monthly. A Quarterly meeting is also held with the Management team to discuss the status and any relevant actions are assigned. In 2020, 52 Departmental objectives (49 in 2019) were assigned as below: • 19 objectives were completed (37%) compared to 16 completed in 2019 (33%) • 26 pending full completion (50%) compared to 25 pending full completion in 2019 (51%) • 2 sitting at 0% (4%) compared to 3 at 0% in 2019 (6%) • 5 objectives had been cancelled (10%) which was the same in 2019 with 5 cancelled (10%) Department % Completed AM Projects 25% TESS 33% Service 0% Repair 20% Baku 33% 0% Field Engineering 50% RRE 100% 0% Competency 67% HR 50% 33% Logistics 100% Purchasing 50% 100% QA 0% Spares Training Warehouse (BSD) Inside Sales Objectives had not been met or cancelled due to the Bedlington Warehouse being closed, the COVID- 19 impact affecting targeted revenues and the Competency Qualification verification audit. Further information and comments on each objective can be found in Rig Doc #100821670 39

Departmental Goals and Objectives Below is an excerpt of the QA Team Objectives. These are established by at the start of the year and are monitored and updated monthly following the monthly KPI & Objective meeting. Of the 21 objectives: • 15 were completed (71%) • 6 of these objectives were postponed to 2021 due to the change in business activities and limited resource. BPA Process Update Below is the % of conformance for the BPA implementation audits for the applicable UK and Baku facilities. The verification of implementation Field Engineering and RRE is scheduled for Q1 2021. Department / Area % Conformance Training <70% 99.1% AM Projects 98.4% TESS 100% Service 100% 96.9% Warranty 99.2% Repair 97.9% N/A Baku Repair N/A Spares Field Engineering RRE 40

THANK YOU FROM THE QA TEAM Lola Ajagbonna – Regional QA Manager Mike O’Shea – QA Advisor Rachael McDonald – QA Coordinator Brian Hill – QA Advisor Jenna Forbes – QA Coordinator