Minutes of Meeting of API SUBCOMMITTEE ON …mycommittees.api.org/standards/ecs/sc8/Meeting...

of 17CSOEM/SC8 June 2017 Meeting Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of

API SUBCOMMITTEE ON DRILLING STRUCTURES & EQUIPMENT

(CSOEM/SC8)

28 June 2017, 8:30 AM to 12 Noon Chairman: Mark Trevithick 2017 Exploration & Production Standards Secretary: Bo Creek Conference on Oilfield Equipment and Materials Telus Convention Center, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Agenda Item Numbering Scheme: YNXX Where Y is a single digit for year of introduction.

Y1XX - TG1 (Drilling Structures) Agenda Items Y2XX - TG2 (Drilling Equipment) Agenda Items Y3XX - TG3 (Hoisting Equipment) Agenda Items Y4XX - TG4 (Wire Rope & Roller Chain) Agenda Items Y5XX - TG5 (Hammer Union) Agenda Items

1. CALL TO ORDER

The chairman: Called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM; Discussed safety moment and evacuation plan; Asked members and visitors to sign the attendance list / roster, and; Asked each person attending to introduce themselves to the group.

API Staff (Katie Burkle): API Antitrust Guidelines; Identification and Establishment of Quorum; Quorum is 12 and 16 in attendance

2. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES

Motion by: Faisal Yousef Seconded by: Dennis Fetter

Motion: Approve the minutes from the CSOEM/SC8 June 2016 conference as recorded

Decision: Carried unanimously

3. TASK GROUP REPORTS & DISCUSSIONS

A. TG1 Task Group on Drilling and Well Servicing Structures – Anthony Mannering TG1 2016 June Conference meeting minutes were approved.


API 4F: API 4F, 4th Edition was published January 2013, and is effective August 1, 2013. Errata 1 was published December 2016. Item 6102: Implementation of AISC 360-16 (ASD) Specification Marcus McCoo chairs this work group. Marcus discussed summary of recent workgroup meeting held on June 19, 2017, which focused on ways to best implement Allowable Strength Design (ASD). Since no further work has been done towards LFRD due to funding approval on hold, the workgroup felt it was more appropriate to concentrate efforts on ASD. Bob Donnally mentioned that one of the primary reasons of studying LRFD was a concern of AISC not keeping up ASD. However, AISC has stated that they plan to continue to use ASD in upcoming and future AISC editions. TG1 determined to start a new study using AISC 360-16 and Allowable Strength Design (ASD). The chair of the workgroup is Marcus McCoo.

Motion by: Robert Urbanowski

Second by: Bob Donnally

Motion to: Use AISC 360-16 (ASD) over 360-10 (ASD)

Decision: Passed.

TG1 discussed renewing API 4F for another five (5) years and send this out for ballot.


Second by: Nar Sripadanna

Motion to: Send Current API 4F Out For Renewal

Decision: Passed.

Motion by: Bide Alford

Second by: Robert Urbanowski

Motion to: Motion to change scope of 6102 to Implementation of AISC 360-16 (ASD) Specification

Decision: Passed.

Item 11101: Inclusion of Rig Moving systems in API 4F. . This item is dropped and will be removed from the agenda.

Item 5102 - Definition of Crown Block Assembly.


Ballot draft submitted to API staff June 2, 2017.

Item 5103 - Lifting Lugs.

This item is dropped and will be removed from the agenda.

Item 5104 - API 4F Design Validation.

TG1 chose to accept a draft wording and send it to Letter Ballot.

Motion by: Bo Creek

Second by: Mark Trevithick

Motion to: Accept and Send to Letter Ballot

Decision: Passed.

Letter Ballot Item API RP4G: API RP4G, 4th Edition was published April 2012. Addendum 1 is dated August 2016. A two-year extension of the validity of this RP has been approved by CSOEM.

Item 6103 – Review Competency Requirements for Structural Inspectors in RP4G Anthony Mannering chairs this workgroup. Currently, structural inspector competency requirements shall be issued for a 40-day comment review to TG1. Items of API 4G to be worked on include:

1) Definitions from API 4G need to coincide with those from API 4F. 2) API 4G needs to be updated to reflect the structural specifications chosen for

API 4F, including AISC 360-16. This is an ongoing agenda item

Item 6104 – Cat IV Inspections for Offshore Structures Anthony Mannering chairs this workgroup. A workgroup meeting was held during the year with eight offshore drilling contractors in attendance and unanimously suggested that this work item was unnecessary. No operators were in attendance. The work group recommended that this item be dropped. SC8 agreed to drop the work item, but the chair agreed to report this to CSOEM with recommendation that operator participation would be needed to restore the work item.


This item is dropped and will be removed from the agenda.

Item 6105 – Definition of Pin Connections This item is dropped and will be removed from the agenda.

Item 6106 – Limitations on Use of Tubular Steel Area Reductions Anthony Mannering chairs this workgroup. TG1 discussed if wording should be changed to address the most recent ASTM tubular steel specifications, 1065 and 1085. AISC 360-16 addresses new ASTM tubular steel. TG1 chose to accept a proposed draft wording for tubular steel specifications and send to Letter Ballot.

Motion by: Mark Trevithick


Motion to: Accept and Send to Letter Ballot

Decision: Passed.

Letter Ballot Item Item 6107 – Removal of sections 11.7.2 and 11.7.3 from API 4F Ballot draft submitted to API staff June 2, 2017.

SC8 voted to accept the minutes as presented.



Motion to: Motion to accept TG1 minutes as presented

Decision: Passed.

B. TG2 Task Group on Drilling Equipment – Faisal Yousef API 7K: API 7K 6th edition was published, and is effective December 2015. Errata 1 is dated May 2016 and Errata 2 is dated August 2016. Item 9202: Spec 7K requirement for BOP Handling Systems. Mikael Pederson chairs this work group.


The work group met Monday and went through the consolidated draft and reached consensus on most items during the meeting. The work group needs to address some of the comments and do some re-write. The updated proposal will be circulated within the Work Group and considered for broader distribution in TG2. Updating of API RP 7L for BOP Handling Systems was not discussed during this conference, but was briefly reviewed since last year’s conference. Michael gave a brief report encapsulating the events at the TG2 meeting and over the last year. This is an ongoing agenda item

Item 0202: Coverage of Drawworks versus Drawworks Components. Faisal Yousef chairs this work group. The work group met on Monday and went through the Emergency Brake section of draft 4a. The discussion focused on the establishing values for the minimum emergency brake stopping and maintaining capability and the fast line tension values. Alf Henry Aker shared a draft of the work that he is working on at DNV. After hours of discussion, there was a motion to use part of what Alf shared: “The emergency braking system shall have the capacity to stop any allowable load and speed, with brakes in worst allowable condition, within 75% of the specified maximum stopping distance.” To replace the following: The minimum emergency brake stopping and maintaining capability for any load-speed combination in the drawworks operating range shall be 140% of the load induced torque on the drum at the rated layer. The stopping and maintaining capability of the emergency brake must be maintained above the minimum requirement during all drawworks operations. During the emergency stop, the fast line tension shall not exceed 90% of the minimum new breaking strength of the specified nominal rope used in paragraph 9.9.2.1.

Motion by: Tim Watson

Second by: Adrian Lis

Motion to: “The emergency braking system shall have the capacity to stop any allowable load and speed, with brakes in worst allowable condition, within 75% of the specified maximum stopping distance.”

Decision: The motion carried with 10 “favor” and 1 “opposed”


It was determined by the work group that the new wording would need to be expanded on. Peter Cave volunteered to review the draft and propose more wording for the TG meeting. At the TG2 meeting, Faisal gave an update on the progress and discussion from the meeting yesterday. Alf Aker shared some insights based on some work reviewing similar issues at DNVGL. Some of that language was adopted as stated above. This particular language and philosophy were discussed briefly. The language suggested by Peter Cave was presented and Peter gave a brief discussion about the philosophy of considering specification based on maximum stopping distance to right size the brakes. The discussion encompassed the range of braking applications in general. This material presented by Peter will be the basis for the work group discussion going forwards. The idea is for the drawworks manufacturer to define the maximum stopping distance and the maximum fastline pull. This is an ongoing agenda item. Item 2202 and Item 3201: Hoses used for Underbalanced and Gas Drilling/ Proposed Increase to Rated Pressure of Mud and Cement Hoses within API 7K. Dr. Tibor Nagy chairs this workgroup. The work group met Monday and worked on the following issues:

1) Definition of the hose assembly design family. The WG could not agree on a

definition and agreed that Gates and Technip will come up with a proposal. 2) Regarding High Pressure Mud and Cement hose assemblies, it was agreed that

Dr. Nagy will prepare a new definition to reflect the original scope of the WG “Hoses carrying fluid to the well bore and not hoses that may be transporting fluids from the well bore.”

3) Dunlop Argentina proposed to refine the requirement of load carrying nonmetallic materials (epoxy) considering section 6.4.

a. Dr. Nagy will modify the subject paragraph 4) Gates proposed to include twist limitation requirement. The proposal was

rejected 3 against, 2 abstain, with no-one in favor. 5) Content of section 10d was voted, 4 in favor, 1 abstain, no-one against to

remove length change requirement from the table. 6) Marking of fire rating to be simplified according to the following:

a. Not fire rated b. Basic fire protection 5 min c. Advanced fire protection 30 min

In summary, Dr. Nagy will implement the decisions into the draft 9, after receiving proposals for design family definition. The work group decided that after finalizing, the draft will be proposed for ballot together with draft of related changes to 7L (Item 5202).


At the TG2 meeting, Dr. Nagy reported briefly on the progress made. 7L was not discussed at this meeting but the changes needed to keep 7L up to date have been considered. This is an ongoing agenda item.

Item 5203: Makeup and Breakout machines (Iron Roughneck) / Power Tong. Adrian Lis chairs this workgroup. The work group met on Monday and the summary is as follow: 1) After thoughtful discussion the group came up with a description for the new

item: Powered Makeup/Breakout Equipment 2) The word “Tubular” originally included, was removed to make the section more

inclusive (i.e.: for rods) 3) There was discussion of the equipment that would be included under this

section and the list produced in the previous meeting was mainly accepted. 4) There was the intention within the group to include equipment for

making/breaking rods but there was no one present with expertise. 5) Started reviewing applicability of sections 4 to 8 of the current version of 7K. It

was suggested to create smaller work groups and volunteers were assigned to tasks that were divided as follows: a. Section 3 and 4 b. Section 5 c. Sections 8.6 and 8.7

6) There was discussion regarding correct terminology and need for additional definition of Primary Load Path.

This is an ongoing agenda item

API 7L:

API 7L 1st edition was published, and is effective April 1996. Addendum 1 was published February 2006 and Addendum 2 was published March 2006. API Ballot Item 2703 to reaffirm API 7L closed on 10-Aug-2012 and passed ballot. CSOEM has approved a 2-year extension of the validity of this RP (thru June 2018).

Item 5202: Revise to align with changes to 7K regarding hoses. Dr. Tibor Nagy chairs this WG. A draft has been prepared and was to be sent to letter ballot after the June 2016 conference; after the conference, it was suggested by Dr. Nagy that we hold on issuing the API 7L ballot until the 7K hose ballot is nearly done. This is an ongoing agenda item. SC8 voted to accept Dr. Nagy’s suggestion to issue ballot on 5202 with that of 2202/3201 when that ballot is ready to issue.


Motion by: Samir Ghalayini

Second by: Kurt Vandervort

Motion to: Hold all hose ballots until they are complete

Decision: Passed Unanimously

Item 6201: Review and prepare new edition draft of RP7L. Robert Urbanowski chairs this workgroup. Robert gave a brief update on the overall of 7L based on 8C. There are several sections that are not included in the work being done, hoses and BOP handling because those are very active areas that are near conclusion. Robert says the groups is ready to have the document circulated to a larger group. Katie noted that the extension requested of CSOEM was granted for 2 years.


Second by: Samir Ghalayini

Motion to: Update title of work item to “Review and prepare new edition draft of RP7L.”


This is an ongoing agenda item. New Business – Drilling and Well Servicing Equipment (Items 72XX) Item 7201 Review Definition of Design verification and Validation to ensure API 7K is in line with API Q1 The conflict exists that the wording of 7K uses “verification” with test requirements” but in Q1 the word used for this same effort is “Validation”. Therefore, the definition of “verification” and “validation” need to be reviewed and brought into alignment with Q1. Laszlo Marko will chair the workgroup. Robert Urbanowski, Bo Creek and Andre Vierke volunteered to participate. End of TG2 Minutes. SC8 voted to accept the minutes as presented.


Second by: Randy Pyrch




C. TG3 Task Group on Hoisting Equipment – Faisal Yousef API 8C: API 8C 5th edition was published April 2012, and is effective October 2012; Errata to specifications was published in May 2014. The 6th edition of 8C is nearing completion and is expected to be published in 2017. Several outstanding ballot items require resolution; the TG recommended that these be closed out for inclusion in the new edition. As soon as possible, the final draft will be sent out for final review before publication. TG3 voted to request a two year extension from CSOEM.



Motion to: Solicit a two year extension from CSOEM

Decision: Passed

SC8 concurred with TG3 recommendation regarding extension request. SC8 chair to request that CSOEM approve a two-year extension of existing specification. API RP 8B:

API RP 8B 8th edition was published and is effective May 2014. Item 3301: Nominal Equivalent Stress - API 8C Section 4.3.4. Kurt Vandervort chairs this workgroup. The workgroup went through all the ballot comments and has resolved all of them. There was a motion for each technical issue along with a second for each. In all cases those motions carried. The end result was that several items were seen as non-persuasive. The editorial issues were all handed over to the Work group chair along with the TG3 chair to resolve in conjunction with API staff. This was moved, seconded and voted on by the group as a whole and passed without objection. The Excel file provided by API staff has been updated with the specific details of each comment and each individual vote and will be attached. This will then go back to API Staff for final review and a decision as to whether it is necessary for this to go out for final ballot or only for final review. At this time it is our assumption that this workgroup is essentially complete and this updated language will be included in the next addendum or edition of API 8C. Katie Burkle of API staff acknowledged that no additional ballot is needed and the item is considered passed and resolution complete. This item will be removed from agenda upon publication. API RP 8B:


API RP 8B 8th edition was published and is effective May 2014. Item 3302: Spec 8C Marking Requirements Randy Pyrch chairs this work group. The work group met on Monday and reviewed the changes to the ballot and there were no comments. The work group awaiting decision on whether to resend the revised wording to ballot or not. Randy gave a brief overview of the notes and issues from above. The recommendations of the WG were accepted without comment and TG3 voted to send to letter ballot.


Second by: Paul Boeckman

Motion to: Motion to send revised wording for re-ballot

Decision: Passed

Letter Ballot Item Item 4301: Sheave Rim Groove This item is complete and will be removed from the agenda.

Item 4304: Prototype Testing of Washpipes with Mechanical Seals. This item is complete and will be removed from the agenda.

Item 5301: Acceptance Criteria for Non-Ferromagnetic Metals.

Pat Johnson chairs this workgroup. The workgroup met Monday. Pat presented a draft for discussion.

Mark Sibille had submitted that the second and third paragraphs of 8.4.7.2 be swapped as an editorial change. The motion swap positions of the paragraphs was made by Paul Boeckman, seconded by David Beltran and carried unanimously. Mark Sibille also submitted that the Information and calculations for high stress, low stress, and critical areas following Table 5 be moved to the start of 8.4.7.4.1. Included was the suggestion that the remainder of the existing section be titled 8.4.7.4.2 Ferromagnetic Castings and that the draft of 8.4.7.4.2 be changed to 8.4.7.3 and the calculations mentioned above be deleted from this section. This will leave the consideration of critical areas and high and low stress sections in one location. The motion to make this change to the draft was made by David Beltran, seconded by Paul Boeckman and carried unanimously. David Beltran submitted that the maximum allowable indications in Table 6 and Table 7 for non-linear random individual discontinuities in non-critical areas be


changed to 1/3 T or 7.6 mm (0.30”) whichever is less. He also submitted that the maximum allowable indications in Table 6 and Table 7 for cracks, hot tears, cold shuts or through wall discontinuities in non-critical areas be changed to 7.6 mm (0.30”). This change to the draft was moved by Paul Boeckman, seconded by Dragan Radojevic and carried unanimously. It was moved by Paul Boeckman, seconded by David Beltran that the updated draft be presented to TG3 for letter ballot. The motion carried unanimously. At the TG3 meeting, Pat gave a brief overview of the updates from the work group meeting. TG3 voted to send the item to letter ballot.

Motion by: Paul Boeckman


Motion to: Motion to Send this item for ballot

Decision: Passed

Letter Ballot Item

Item 5303: Modify scope of API 8C to be in Line with Scope of API 7K (to address inclusion of replacement primary load-carrying components).

This item is complete and will be removed from the agenda.

Item 5304: API 8C Requirement to Test Elevator with Bore/Configuration Generating Highest Stresses & API 8B Requirement for Repeating Load Testing After Reboring.

Baastian de Jong agreed to serve as chair. Mark Sibille, Manolete Mena, Perry Rodriguez and Larry Childress volunteered or were volunteered to be on this work group.


Item 5305: Manufacturing Process Controls.

This item is complete and will be removed from the agenda upon publication.

Item 5306: Impact Property Requirements for Design Temperature and for SR2.

This item is complete and will be removed from the agenda upon publication.

Item 6301: Inclusion of wording from API 7K on slips and spiders into API 8C for Slip-type Elevators and Slip-type Spiders raised by Kurt Vandervort

The work group met at the conference and the topic was discussed generally and then the specific issue of the tubular test required as a part of the DVT in 7K and


how to evaluate the data generated by that test. Henry Williams and Matteau Massines from SC5 were able to attend this meeting. There was a lengthy discussion about the issues of how to execute the test, where to put the strain gages, and how the data is viewed by both the slip/spider manufacturers versus how the data is used and viewed by the tubular manufacturers. There is a significant disparity between these two. The history of this requirement being included in 7K 6th edition was discussed, going back to the 7K work group on slips. The decision was to ask the gentlemen from SC5 to go back to that group and see if we can set-up and ad hoc meeting here in Calgary to establish a basis for the several views of the significance of this and try to give some direction for the group going forward, and to draw in interest from SC5. It is acknowledged in the discussion that the view of and value assigned to Spiri-Reinhold is quite different from the view of the slip manufacturers versus from the pipe manufacturers. It is believed the view is different yet again from drilling contractors and operators. This group is to be Faisal Yousef, Henry Williams, Matteau Massines, David Pattillo (SC5 and historical involvement in 7K 6th edition), Bastian de Jong, Kurt Vandervort. Further the group asked for and moved to push for a new work item to review 7K 6th edition paragraph 9.5.4 on slips versus 9.6.4 on spiders to make sure they are fully consistent. This is especially true with respect the variation in requirements for equipment rated at or over 500 ton versus that which is below 500 ton. This is an ongoing agenda item

Item 6302: Comparison between API 7K and API 8C on consistent wording that can be utilized.

Ellen Bashaw volunteered to take over the chair of the workgroup. Andre Vierke (Forum) volunteered to support the group and stated that he has looked at and developed some comparison of functional requirements between 7K and 8C. He will support Larry Childress from Forum on the group. As a correction to the minutes from last year, the name Harry Rodriguez is in the minutes but it should be Perry. Further, Bastian de Jong agreed to also participate in this work group. Faisal Yousef informed the group that he had forwarded the beginning efforts of Joshua Hebert as the original chair to Ellen.


New Work Items Item 7301 Review and address BSEE QC-FIT Report #005: Evaluation of Sheaves Failures


The following email was received from Austin Freeman: Please find attached a recent BSEE publication of a QC-FIT report involving hoisting sheaves. In the report, BSEE has several recommendations to the OEM (NOV in this case) but also has recommendations to “industry” which could be interpreted to fall under the CSOEM jurisdiction. Therefore, I would like SC8 to consider forming a task group to review this report and the associated API standards and prepare a report suitable for eventual transmission to BSEE. If you agree to do so, in my opinion this report should address as a minimum: 1) Industry comments on the report (agree/disagree/changes, etc.) 2) Status of current API 8C revision in process, including anticipated publication

date, and summary of changes (if any) on Hoisting Sheaves since the previous edition

3) Future suggested changes (if any) to API 8C and RP8B to prevent these types of issues in the future and the proposed timetable associated with those changes

4) Status of API Monogram on Hoisting Sheaves [licenses, NCR reports (if any) on Hoisting Sheaves (get sanitized versions from Sharon Bowie)]

Regarding the BSEE recommendation to revise API Q1: SC18 already has a TG working to revise API Q1 to address the controls necessary for sub-suppliers. Jason Kody – Shell (copied) is leading this TG and has a meeting planned June 19-20. I suggest you liaise with him to prevent duplication of efforts. If SC8 members are attending, please advise names/companies. In any case, please insure your SC8 report to the CSOEM for Calgary includes a status on this topic as BSEE is in attendance at that portion of the meeting.

The BSEE report was discussed as well as the request from CSOEM for SC8/TG3 to provide a formal response. Motion:


Second by: Bob Donnally

Motion to: Motion to Review the report, provide a formal response to the CSOEM items listed above and review if there are any consequences of this review that will make changes to 8B or 8C as necessary.

Decision: Passed

The group will be chaired by Katie Burkle. WG volunteers were Paul Boeckman, Mark Sibille, Robert Urbanowski, Bo Creek, Michael Peterson, David Beltran, Manolet Mena. This will be a new work item Item 7302: Sheave Marking Requirement:


Update the marking requirements for sheaves (9.2.6) to be cleared as to the intent. This item was brought to the attention of TG3 through a request for interpretation from an API 8C licensee. Suggested new wording is: “Sheaves shall be marked with the manufacturer's name or mark, the nominal wire rope diameter and the sheave outside diameter. These markings shall be cast or stamped on the side of the outer rim of the sheave.” There has been some e-mail traffic about the need for user information marked on the sheave to include the appropriate wire rope size instead of the groove size. It appears this is already the way sheaves are being marked. The decision of the group was to send this matter out for letter ballot directly from this meeting and not to form a WG. Note: the wording in the document and the example below will both be updated to reflect that they both refer to the wire rope size. Robert Urbanowski made the motion and Dennis Fetter seconded. Motion carried.


Second by: Dennis Fetter

Motion to: Motion to Send this matter out for letter ballot directly from this meeting and not to form a WG. The wording above along with the example have to be updated to show the wire rope size.

Decision: Passed

Letter Ballot Item Item 7303: Rotary swivel prototype pressure testing Randy Pyrch brought up an issue of Rotary swivel prototype and production Pressure Testing. This needs to include the wording from 4304 and is a rewording of the sentence. This is to bring the two pressures into alignment so the test pressure and the description of the test are together in the document. This will be sent to letter ballot after the inclusion of verbiage from 4304.

Motion by: Mark Sibille

Second by: Mike Zemanek

Motion to: Motion to accept this work item to include verbiage from 4304 and then to send to letter ballot.

Decision: Passed

New agenda item Item 7304: Include Lower Well Control Valves as part of API 8C Randy Pyrch opened a discussion regarding the Lower Well Control Valves (LWCV) on the top drive and inclusion into 8C. The argument is that at this time


these valve have no controlling specification from hoisting perspective. This is focused on valves used with the top drive only. It becomes a piece of hoisting equipment when it is between the top drive and some other piece of equipment suspended below it. The work group would to explore the significance of and look at how/if the specification will handle a LWCV that is being used as a load carrying member in 8C equipment.

Motion by: Randy Pyrch

Second by: Perry Rodriguez

Motion to: Motion to accept this work item and to explore the significance of and look at how/if the specification will handle a LWCV that is being used as a load carrying member in 8C equipment.

Decision: Passed

Work group is Randy Pyrch (chair), Perry Rodriguez, Alf Aker, Ellen Bashaw, Armando Reyes. New agenda item Item 7305: Evaluation of Operating Temperature in 8C Andre Vierke brought up a low temperature discussion because there are customers asking for -40F conditions. The ambient outside temperature may be -40 but most cold weather rigs are housed so the rig floor operating temperature is significantly different than the ambient external weather condition temperature. Should the real operating condition be based on operating temperature of the piece of equipment in service, not the actual ambient temperature of the environment where the rig is residing. The argument is that the hydraulic systems on the rig will not work if the fluid is -40. So the rig overall will not work at -40. So the actual operating temperature is much warmer than these extremely cold temperature. The idea developed into a WG being formed to evaluate the real operating conditions and the resulting needed material requirements for low temperature. For example an elevator that was holding a load when the rig was shut down and the load was left hanging for some reason. The elevator cannot fail due to the static load at -40 even though the rig was not really operating. When operations were reinitiated the rig will have to be warmed back up before the equipment will actually run. The idea is that there may be a need for a structural surviving temperature versus an operating temperature.




Motion to: Motion to accept this work item and to evaluate the term operating temperature in 8C and its interpretation and how it is interpreted as a requirement for load path components vs for actual rig operations.

Decision: Motion Carried

The work group will consist of: Andre Vierke (Chair), Bastiaan de Jong, Sebastion Hemel, Manolete Mena, Ellen Beshaw, Armando Reyes, Mike Moellenbeck. New agenda item End of TG3 Minutes. SC8 voted to accept the minutes as presented.

Motion by: Randy Pyrch

Second by: Bide Alford



D. TG4 Task Group on Wire Rope & Roller Chain – Brent Dein

API 7F:

API 7F 8th edition was published, and is effective November 1, 2011 and Errata 1 was published May 2013. The spec was reaffirmed in April 2016.

No ongoing work. API 9A:

API 9A 26th edition was published May 1, 2011, and is effective November 2011. Errata was published in October 2012. The spec was reaffirmed April 2016, and Addendum 1 is dated November 2016. No ongoing work.

API 9B: API RP9B 14th edition was published October 2015. Item 1402: Wire Rope design factors. Mikael Pederson chairs this workgroup.


Mikael provided a summary of ongoing efforts and discussion, and provided four resolutions for consideration: 1) Research Funding for CBOS tests and Tensile tests for wire rope 2) Leave the Design Factor table in API RP 9B as it is currently constructed 3) Add a line to the Design Factor Table specifically for setting the BOP. 4) Add recommendations for maintenance, inspection, and slip & cut procedures

for this operation A proposal was made to amend the 6th line in “Table 2 – Minimum Design Factors” to specifically mention setting the BOP as an infrequent operation with a recommended minimum design factor of 2. Additionally, a comment would be added below Table 2 that reads: “Note: Cutoff program according to Chapter 5.1 should be used. If a cutoff program is not used, this should be justified. It is recommended to inspect the wire before and after heavy operations. Heavily worn wire should not be used for these operations.”

Motion by: Mikael Pederson


Motion to: Motion to send proposal to letter ballot


Letter Ballot Item

Item 5401 – Improve Clarity of API RP 9B in sections 2.3.3.5, 2.3.5, and 2.7.

Mike Seminatore discussed the work on Item 5401 and the resolution to the suggestions made in 2016. 1) Check the wording in 4F to ensure it does not conflict with wording proposed

for 2.3.3.5 in API RP 9B a. Checked and no conflict

2) Use the wording in the Wire Rope Technical Board for fleet angles as applicable for 2.7.1 in regards to fleet angles a. Wording amended as presented

3) Consider addressing sparking due to wire rope scrubbing caused by fleet angles. a. Considered but not included

4) Amend the graphic for fleet angles to include drum fleet angles AND sheave fleet angles a. Amended as presented

5) Amend the graphic to accurately show fleet angles which is not currently captured in the top-down view. a. Amended as presented

Further discussion occurred on the fleet angle graphics and recommendations to add reference to sheave fleet angles in addition to the existing drum fleet angles. Dewayne Vogt offered to help Mike Seminatore amend the graphics.


Motion by: Mikael Pederson


Motion to: Motion to send proposed wording for 2.3.3.5 and 2.3.5 to letter ballot while work on 2.7 continues in the current work item


Letter Ballot Item

This is an ongoing agenda item (section 2.7 changes)

Item 6401: Review API 9A

Brent Dein chairs this work group. Request for more participants in the review was made in the meeting. Nar Sripidanna volunteered himself and James Zapico of T&T Engineering Services. This is an ongoing agenda item End of TG4 Minutes. SC8 voted to accept the minutes as presented.

Motion by: Dennis Fetter

Second by: Anthony Mannering



E. TG5 Task Group on Hammer Unions Note: The SC8 TG5 task group will not meet at this conference. Their meetings have been held in Houston, Texas on an as-needed basis. API 7HU1:

API 7HU1 1st edition was published May 2009 and was reaffirmed April, 2014. API Hammer Union Specification: Item 9501: Hammer Union Specification.

Cindy Taff (Shell) and Jason Peart (Shell) co-chair this work group.

Jason Peart provided an email update of the current work:


The subgroup has completed the actual spec, though in the review process identified a need to completion further dimensional testing to ensure fits physically. This is currently being worked with the manufacturers. Once complete, the spec will be ready for ballot. This is purely an assurance exercise at this point.

There was limited desire from the group to do design validation testing on all the hammer union configurations. Stress completed this work on the worst case union and validated the engineering analysis results. The group as a whole does not see a need to physically stress test and fail every union combination to confirm the engineering analysis. This decision has caused a bit of delay, but believe we are past it at this point.

The RP is noted and the group is keen to start working on it at the completion of the spec.

I expect the spec to go to ballot in Q3.

Concern was expressed that the specification draft may not be sufficient if the product is to be included in the Monogram program.

Action Item for SC 8 Chair – SC8 chair to discuss with the CSOEM if Hammer Unions are intended for inclusion in the monogram program.


F. Report from MPB Liaison (Shawn Firenza)

Shawn Firenza was not in attendance; Mark Trevithick presented a brief summary of current MPB work:

1. Updated licensing agreement will be released Q3 2017. – Incorporates language on the Monogram Program eligibility

requirements – Incorporates language of Advisory 9 - Recognition and Authority

of Published Standards and Advisory 10 – Invoicing and Payment Terms.

– Clarifies requirements to applicable trade control laws 2. The advisory specifying activities and processes that are not eligible for

licensing is under review by API Management – Changes to API Spec Q1, Annex A will be drafted once final

advisory language set 3. A defined process / criteria for adding specs to the Monogram Program is

being documented. Implementation Q3 2017. 4. Continuing to develop possible program for auditing of centralized design

centers


5. Publication backlog recognized and being worked with additional resources

G. Standards Approaching End of 5 year Review Cycle 1) API RP4G 4th edition was published April 2012, making the end of its five (5)

year cycle 30-April-2017.

SC8 approved the TG1 recommendation to request a 2 year extension for the validity of the document from CSOEM at the June 2016 conference. CSOEM approved the extension.

Motion by: Anthony Mannering

Second by: Robert Urbanowski

Motion to: Direct TG1 to establish a NWI to review and update RP 4G


New Agenda Item.

2) API RP7L 1st edition was reaffirmed in August 2012, making the end of its five

(5) year cycle 31-August-2017.

SC8 approved the TG2 recommendation to request a 2 year extension for the validity of the document from CSOEM at the June 2016 conference. CSOEM approved the extension.

3) API 8C 5th edition was published April 2012, and is effective October 2012;

Errata to specifications was published in May 2014. A two year extension on current edition will be requested of CSOEM to close some of the remaining open items before publication of the 6th edition later this year.

H. New Work Items (NWI) Proposal Review and Approval As discussed in the above TG reports:


Second by: Andre Vierke

Motion to: Expand the scope of TG3 Work Item 6302 to include Review of Normative references and possible equivalences


Chair and members will remain the same as original task group


Motion by: Kurt Vandervort

Second by: Mark Sibille

Motion to: Adopt equivalent stress item (3301) in 8C and roll them into 7K


Chair: Kurt Vandervort; Members Mark Sibille

Motion by: Kurt Vandervort

Second by: Samir Ghalaayini

Motion to: New Work item for TG2 – Review 7K paragraph 9.4 and 9.5 on slips and spiders and bring the appropriate wording into alignment


Chair: Kurt Vandervort; Members Andre Vierke

New business: Currently SC8 does not have a liaison with SC 21 and the question was proposed does the group feel the need to identify a liaison with SC 21. SC 8 discussed the proposed question. Motion by: Manolete Mena

Second by: Bide Alford

Motion to: Motion to nominate Manolete Mena as the liaison to SC 21 and for him to report back to SC8


Mark Sibille recognized the SC8 on attendance and new members joining the subcommittee, and encouraged the new members to get more involved in the committees. Mark Trevithick will be stepping down as SC 8 chair and Shawn Firenza has been approved as the new chair for SC 8, effective immediately after this conference; Shawn will identify a new chair to replace him on TG1.

I. Research Funding – Report by Katie Burkle (API Staff)

SC8 TG1 has completed a current funded project with Stress Engineering (phase 2, first part of item 6102). Additional funding was requested of CSOEM at the June 2016 and the January 2017 Conferences. At this conference, TG1 voted to take a new direction on this item obviating the need for the last round of research funding. Marcus McCoo passed this change on to the CSOEM research funding group.


J. Adjournment


Second by: Brent Dein

Motion to: Motion to adjourn at 11:45 am


Minutes of Meeting of API SUBCOMMITTEE ON …mycommittees.api.org/standards/ecs/sc8/Meeting...

Documents

Transcript of Minutes of Meeting of API SUBCOMMITTEE ON …mycommittees.api.org/standards/ecs/sc8/Meeting...