API TG#5 1/26/11

Chairman: Leon Robinson Vice Chairman: Secretary: Mark Crabbe

API TG#5 1/26/11

ROLL CALL to confirm quorum –

.Voting Members Operators1. Shannon Stocks ExxonMobil2. Brent Estes Chevron3. Paul Scott ConocoPhillips4. Hugo Osorio Equion Energy5. David Ekas Marathon6. Ron Rock Shell7. Phil Duhon Apache8. Gary Young Oxy 9. Diaz Andres BP

VOTING MEMBERS

.Voting Members Consultants

10. Cheryl Stark11. David Goff Harding University12. Leon Robinson

VOTING MEMBERS

.

Voting Members Vendors13. Ron Morrison Chevron Sponsor

Derrick Equipment

14. Mark CrabbeExxonMobil Sponsor

NOV-Brandt

BP Sponsor15. Terry BaltzerConocoPhillips Sponsor

MI-Swaco

16. Dan FarrarOxy Sponsor

Scomi Oil Tools

Marathon Sponsor

18. George FisherShell Sponsor

Axiom Process, Ltd

VOTI

NG

MEM

BERS

.

Members

Sabine Zeilinger ExxonMobilNeil Trotter ChevronTom Larson NOV - BrandtE. J. Kubena NOV – BrandtBuck Dear ConsultantNace Peard VIMARCJerry Haston ConsultantBrian Carr MI-SwacoZhang Jianquo BPTom Fithian BPCraig Addison Scomi Oil Tools

MEM

BERS

.Members

Bill Cagle Cagle OilfieldJohn Bakula Derrick EquipmentAlan McKee MI-SwacoTom Remy Global Wire ClothLindsay Fraser MI-SwacoTim Wilkin MI-SwacoJarrod Hammar OFI Testing Equipment

MEM

BERS

API TG#5 5/25/10Charge

• WG#1: Current Section 5 calculates solids removal equipment efficiency but does not illustrate how drilling discharge volumes can be minimized via improved solids removal efficiency. Add calculations and text to demonstrate this relationship.

API TG#5 5/25/10CHARGE

• WG#1: Current Section 5 calculates solids removal equipment efficiency but does not illustrate how drilling discharge volumes can be minimized via improved solids removal efficiency. Add calculations and text to demonstrate this relationship.

• WG#2: Develop and implement procedures to make the industry aware of the changes in

API RP 13C.

SC13 – TG 5

• Minutes of Last Meeting at Chevron in Houston

Nov. 8, 2010 Mark Crabbe

Minutes ofAPI MEETINGNov. 8, 2010

TG #5

Doc Leon / Shannon: Would you please review these minutes for me… I may have misunderstood something or may have made any number of other errors.Thanks in advance.Tom API 13 TG5 November 8 Meeting Minutes A TG5 Meeting was hosted by Chevron at 1:00 pm on Monday, November 8.Thanks to Gerard Simon and the Chevron Team for the accommodations. The number of attendees are listed here in order of seating arrangement around the table. The number of voting members met the criteria for a quorum. · Ron Rock: Shell· Tim Harvey: Halliburton· Craig Addison: Scomi· David Ekas: Marathon· Terry Baltzer: M.I.Swaco· Sam Bridges: Derrick (filling in for Rob Morrison)· Brent Estes: Chevron· Tom Larson: NOV (filling in for Mark Crabbe)· Shannon Stocks: ExxonMobil· Gerard Simon: Chevron· Leon Robinson: API TG5 Chairman· Dan Farrar: Scomi· Paul Scott: Conoco Phillips After review of the Work Group Charges, we reviewed the status of two Working Groups:

Working Group 1: Improving the calculation of Solids Removal Efficiency and Solids Control Equipment Separation Efficiency.The following points and opinions are noted:· As Mark Morgan has transferred to a new job location, this committee is left without a chairman. Volunteers are welcome. Please contact Doc Leon to volunteer. · Perhaps the proper calculation of these values may need to wait for improvements in other rig based measurements, such as the overall total volume of solids discarded, and the overall average of liquid content of the discarded solids flow. · Equipment manufacturers have identified some helpful measurement tools that today, are somewhat cost prohibitive.

Working Group 2: Education and Marketing Efforts / Exploration of opportunities for Auditing the API RP 13 C ComplianceShannon Stocks presented a review of the previous WG2 meetings. The following points and opinions are noted based in part on her presentation material, and on subsequent discussion points:· The Educational Document was submitted to TG5 and was approved. It has (or will soon be) forwarded to the next approval level ? of API for consideration.· Concerning Certification Options:o Selected questions were submitted to Aaron Duke of the API, and his response was forwarded to the WG2 members. The questions used a hypothetical screen manufacturing details to help Aaron assess the “scope of work” issues.o There are two API programs that may help: 1. The Monogram program, and2. The Witnessing program

o Monogram Program Features: http://www.api.org/certifications/monogram/index.cfm 1. The Monogram program is an audit of a manufacturing facility and their QC program.2. While the products themselves may carry the monogram, they are not Audited directly. 3. A list of Compliant companies is posted on the API web page.4. Surprise Audits are conducted, and if a problem is discovered, a Non-Conformance report may also be posted on the API web page.5. It is possible to have the Monogram License pulled.6. See the API documentation directly here: http://www.api.org/certifications/monogram/certificationprocess.cfm o Witness Program Features: http://www.api.org/certifications/witnessing/index.cfm 1. Auditors witness the testing procedures in the witness program.2. Fees are high.3. Generally requires witnessing each possible combination of products.

General DiscussionThe following points and opinions were made subsequent to the presentation covering WG2:· WG2 is leaning toward writing a new Monogram Program for shaker screens as it is likely the best certification alternative for the following reasons:o Aaron Duke suggested that the API would be very amenable to accepting the recommendations of WG2 for the monogram criteria itself.o The monogram can be added into the labels attached to the screens themselves.o Within the monogram compliance criteria, It may be possible to include some criteria covering the compliance of the screens themselves in addition to Auditing the Lab Procedures. · It was generally understood that the additional cost of compliance with the monogram program will be passed on to the screen customers. It is expected that the cost increase will be a small number per screen, but none-the-less, it will be important to tailor the monogram compliance criteria to be thorough enough to be effective, but not excessive.

General Discussion· It was pointed out that the operators are ultimately the group that puts the teeth into the API Monogram since they authorize purchasing decisions. There would be no real value in the monogram program if less expensive, non-API compliant screens are still preferred since their prices would not include the expense of qualifying to receive the monogram.· A comment was made in favor of the practice of cutting up of existing screens for use in API RP 13 C tests versus the use of coupons. There was a brief discussion. o This method allows screens to be pulled from any inventory to check for compliance.· A point was made that a given manufacturer’s Quality Management System may also provide for checking the construction method against the API laboratory measurements. Perhaps the monogram may include Auditing the manufacturers QC practices to locate and substantiate this linkage.

Action Items· Shannon Stocks noted that the next action Item for WG2 was to request input concerning the criteria of the monogram program from as many screen manufacturers as possible, before 12 / 31 / 2010. · The WG 2 will meet to discuss these submitted ideas sometime before the API meeting in Fort Worth on January 24 and 25. Old Business:· None New Business: · There was a general discussion regarding the loss of barite to screen discard as a function of API number. No real API action items resulted.· There was additional discussion of the challenges of distinguishing SRE versus equipment separation efficiency. No real API action items resulted. It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. Respectfully submitted: Tom Larson (Fill-In Secretary)

SC13 – TG 5

Report from Work Group # 1 Modification of API 13C/

ISO 13501; Section 5: Drilled Solids Removal – System Performance. Neil Trotter -

SC13 – TG 5

Report from Work Group # 2Education/Marketing GroupShannon Stocks, Mark Crabbe Educational Tutorial

OLDBUSINESS

??

NEW BUSINESS????

. Next Meeting - Need Host

TG #5 1/26/11

MEMBERS SPEAK

SC 13 – TG#5

Motion to Adjourn?

AmazingMisshaps...

Have a Nice Day!

Drill 100bbl of hole with a 60%SRE in 2000bbl of15ppg drilling fluid.

With 6.26% vol. low gravity solids, the volume percent solids measured by the mud engineer should be 28.5%vol. With 8.26% vol. low gravity solids, the volume percent solids measured by the mud engineer would be 29.1% vol.

•With a 50cc retort, the liquid volumes for the two cases would not be very different. In the case of the 29.1% solids, (or 70.9 %volume water), 35.45 cc of water would be captured in the measuring cylinder. In the case of the 28.5%volume solids (or 71.5 % water), 35.75 cc of water would be captured in the measuring cylinder. We probably need a more accurate method of determining solids in a drilling fluid.