meeting minutes of api subcommittee on drilling …mycommittees.api.org/standards/ecs/sc8/meeting...

CSOEM/SC8 June 2015 Meeting Minutes of 24

Meeting Minutes of

API SUBCOMMITTEE ON DRILLING STRUCTURES & EQUIPMENT (CSOEM/SC8)

24 June 2015 at 8:30 AM Chairman: Mark Trevithick 2015 Exploration & Production Standards Secretary: Bo Creek Conference on Oilfield Equipment and Materials Hyatt Regency San Francisco, CA 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 Y6XX – TG6 (Definition of a Manufacturer) Agenda Items

1. CALL TO ORDER

The chairman:

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

2. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES

Motion by: Ken Kondo Seconded by: Richard Ackerman

Motion: Approve the minutes from the CSOEM/SC8 June 2014 conference as recorded

Decision: Carried unanimously

The chair thanked all task group chairs

3. TASK GROUP REPORTS & DISCUSSIONS

A. TG1 Task Group on Drilling and Well Servicing Structures – Shawn Firenza API 4F: Item 6102: Implementation of AISC 2005 Specification.


At the June 2015 Conference the following activities took place: The group of interested parties met on Monday, and Sathish Ramamoorthy presented the current status and ideas for the path forward. There was much discussion, but the question comes down to a few key questions: 1) Are we satisfied with the proposed load factors, or what more study is required to accept

the load factors? 2) Is it necessary to allow the use of both Allowable Strength Design (ASD and Load

Resistance Factors Design)? 3) How do we determine when analysis of second order effects is required?

Sathish will complete the final report from the phase one study before the end of July, 2015. The second phase study will include validation of the proposed load factors and the resistance factors from API 2TOP-LRFD. Additionally, it will propose a methodology for considering the importance of second order stability effects and an analysis method to use when necessary.

During the TG1 meeting, Sathish presented the proposed scope of work for the second phase of the study that included: • Classification of loads • Selection of partial Load Factors • Comparison of design of the original 5 models utilizing the selected load factors • Stability analysis of model 2 (apparently the model with the most significant nonlinear

issues) from the phase 1 study • Performance of direct analysis method study (second order) on model 2

Based on the discussion, the task group determined a need to define some deliverable items in addition to the steps planned for the phase 2 study. These include: • Recommendations on the load classifications for drilling loads • Recommendations for load factors for all load combinations and resistance factors • Recommended methodology to perform stability analysis on API 4F structures and what

criteria should be used to determine when second order analysis is required.

Note: the steering committee will determine the appropriate load combinations to be considered for this study.

Motion by: Bob Donnally Second by: Anthony Mannering

Motion to:

Accept the proposed phase 2 scope of work and deliverable items including the addition of 2nd order analysis for model 2 and model 5.

Decision: Passed

Shawn Firenza and Sathish Ramamoorthy agreed to use this scope of work to develop a budget for the 2nd phase of the study and draft a funding request to present at the SC8 meeting.


The steering committee will meet after the final phase 1 report is issued in July. Additionally, the steering committee will meet on a regular basis during phase 2 to ensure the study stays focused and the results are understood more broadly.

The steering committee includes: Shawn Firenza, Mark Trevithick, Anthony Mannering, Samir Ghalayini, Marcus McCoo, Mike Seminatore, Mike Zemanek, Shawn Smith, and Denny Wong.

Ongoing agenda item Item 11101: Inclusion of Rig Moving Systems in specification 4F At the June 2015 Conference the following activities took place:

The work group met to discuss the proposed workgroup draft. John Poland presented the minutes from that meeting. The work group concluded that Rig Moving should be considered as a specialized case of transportation and that current specification is sufficient. Additionally, the work group decided to propose to TG1 the need to form a work scope to address adding some description of rig moving to the commentary of API Spec 4F.

Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Sean Duncan Motion to: Accept the minutes and proposed actions from the work group. Decision: Passed

This item will be assigned to the existing work group. Michael Hersley to be added to the work group. Ongoing agenda item API 4G Item 3101: Revision to API RP 4G regarding requirements for inspection for offshore drilling rigs.

This item was balloted under Ballot #3287. The ballot passed with one negative vote and several comments to be resolved. At the TG1 meeting, the ballot comments were considered and the following ballot resolution was proposed: Mast/derricks and substructures on mobile offshore drilling units (including drillships, semi-submersibles or jack-ups) are exempted from the requirements of a Category IV inspection. Category IV inspections are required for rigs which are disassembled for transport from one drilling location to another drilling location, such as those used on fixed platforms or tension-leg platforms.

Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Anthony Mannering Motion to: Stop work on the item and publish as an addenda Decision: Passed


Motion by: Bob Donnally Second by: Mark Trevithick Motion to: Accept proposed ballot resolution Decision: Passed

The work item will be closed and removed from the agenda Item 4101 – Consideration in API RP 4G for rig moving to locations with conditions different than the original design. This item was balloted under Ballot #3288. The ballot passed with three negative votes and several comments to be resolved. At the June 2015 Conference, the ballot comments were considered and the following ballot resolution was proposed: When a rig is moved to a new environment, the rig should be reviewed by a qualified person to ensure the structures meet all required design criteria and structural safety level requirements for the new environment.

Motion by: Samir Ghalayini Second by: Anwer Masood

Motion to: Accepts the proposed ballot resolution, close the work item, and publish the ballot item in the item in the upcoming addenda

Decision: Passed The work item will be closed and removed from the agenda. Item 4102 - Modification of the definition 3.33 for substructure. This item was balloted under Ballot #3289. The ballot passed with no negative votes and one comment. At the June 2015 Conference, the ballot comment was considered at length. After discussion, the comment was withdrawn. This ballot is passed.

The work item will be closed and removed from the agenda New Business – Drilling and Well Servicing Structures (Items 51XX): NWI 5101: Tubular Steel Use in API 4F designs Anthony Mannering introduced the need to better address how tubular members are considered in API 4F products with a proposed revision to address the use of AISC 14 for structures that utilize tubular steel for primary members. It was proposed that: “For derricks, masts, and substructures using tubular steel as the primary load carrying structural members, AISC 14th Edition shall be used in place of AISC 9th Edition for the allowable strength design and connection design.”

Motion by: Mark Trevithick Second by: Samir Ghalayini


Motion to: Create a new work item and form a work group under TG1 to address the requirements use of tubular steel design in API 4F.

Decision: Passed Workgroup: Anthony Mannering (Chair), Marcus McCoo, Michael Hersley, Denny Wong, Mikael Pedersen, Samir Ghalayani, Sathish Ramamoorthy Ongoing agenda item NWI 5102 Definition of Crown Block Assembly Sumit Shah introduced a concern that the definition of Crown Block Assembly in not clear. This leads to misunderstandings about what constitutes the crown assembly versus what are crown components or sub-assemblies. It was noted that the intention has been that the crown assembly is more than simply the crown cluster. The assembly includes the frame and any other components necessary to perform together as the crown. Also, Norm Dyer noted that the allowance for a separate API monogram was due to the historical use of crowns that were separated from the mast or derrick and possibly sold as stand-alone units.

Motion by: Bob Donnally Second by: Chris Ponzi

Motion to: Create a new work item and form a work group under SC8/TG1 to develop wording to clarify the design of crown assembly. This definition may also require drawings or sketches.

Decision: Passed Note: This work group is not addressing the question of when a crown should be monogrammed. It may be necessary to look at that after the definition is complete. Workgroup: Sumit Shah (Chair), Samir Ghalayani, Mike Seminatore, Marcus McCoo, Chris Ponzi, Bob Donnally Ongoing agenda item NWI 5104: Design Validation Bo Creek mentioned a concern based on a recent API audit. The auditor stated that API 4F is not in conformance with API Q1 due to the lack of definition for Design Validation. The TG discussed and concluded that API Spec. 4F is clear on design verification. Design Validation should be documented in conformance with API Q1 and that validation may include test assembly, photo and field feedback, etc. Note: This item was amended following the SC8 meeting on 24-June-2015


After discussion in SC8, the subcommittee voted to open a new work item under TG1 to address design validation in API Spec 4F. Samir Ghalayini volunteered to lead the work group. Bide Alford and Anwer Masood volunteered to work on this item. Shawn Firenza will send a note to the TG1 mail list to solicit other interested members for the work group.

Motion by: Samir Ghalayini Second by: Robert Urbanowski Motion to: Address a Design Validation clause in API 4F

Decision: Passed: For: 12 Against: 5

NWI 5103: Lifting Lugs Samir Ghalayani introduced a concern that API Spec 4F may not sufficiently define the design requirements for lifting lugs/pad eyes. The current spec references RP 2A, but this may lead to over designed lifting points or possibly may lead to confusion due to it being an offshore structures standard. Further discussion mentioned the specification should also be more prescriptive on the testing requirements for lifting lugs.

Motion by: Mike Seminatore Second by: Samir Ghalayani

Motion to: Create a new work item and form a work group under SC8/TG1 to develop wording to define the design and testing requirements for lifting lugs in API Spec 4F.

Decision: Passed Workgroup: Samir Ghalayani (Chair), Mike Seminatore, Denny Wong, John Poland, Dewayne Vogt, Sean Duncan, Mikael Pedersen Ongoing agenda item Chair: requested SRRR forms be completed for the new work items The subcommittee discussed the proposed phase 2 scope and associated budget proposed by Sathish Ramamoorthy. Based on the TG’s increase in scope over the previously approved phase 2 funding, a budget increase of $40,000 is needed. The goal is to have phase 2 completed and ready for a plan to implement into 4F. Robert Urbanowski mentioned a concern about a plan for the study in the event the CSOEM does not approve the additional $40,000 in funding that is required to complete phase 2. The discussion was made to have the steering committee address the issue if funding is not approved. Steering group will meet in August to finalize the plan for next year, and funding approval should be in my the end of 2015 (November / December)

Motion by: Shawn Firenza Second by: Faisal Yousef


Motion to: Accepting the proposal for funding and send to SCOEM for budget approval.


Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Alfred Vide

Motion to: Accept minutes as presented by TG 1, but with the revision of design validation.

Decision: Carried unanimously B. TG2 Task Group on Drilling Equipment – Faisal Yousef API 7K: API 7K 5th edition was published, and is effective December 2010. Errata were published August 2010. There is on-going work to get the 6th edition published, which will include a number of previously balloted and passed items: • Item 7009 (formerly Item 1211): Report on Work Group on Slips. This is a joint work

group between SC8 and SC5. API Ballot ID 2493 was balloted and ballot comments have been resolved.

• Item 2201 (formerly Item 2201): Proposal from Gearench regarding Manual Tongs. API ballot 2399 was balloted and comments have been resolved. This item is expected to be dropped from the agenda once next edition of API 7K is published.

• Item 8201: Identification of "Processes Requiring Validation". API Ballot ID 2641 was balloted and ballot comments have been resolved.

• Item 0201: Potential working and test pressure mismatches on Flanges and Hammer Unions installed on 7K hose assemblies. API Ballot 2777 passed and comments have been resolved.

• Item 0203: Design Verification testing for equipment rated 1250 ton and higher. API Ballot Item 2640 passed and ballot comments have been resolved.

• Item 3202: API revision to Section 9.8.2, to clarify the exclusion of proof load tests for drawworks components in the API 7K, 5th edition. API Ballot Item 2976 passed.

Item 8203: Purchaser Guidelines. The item was balloted under Ballot ID 3456, reached consensus with one negative vote and several comments. The negative vote was withdrawn and the comments have been resolved by Mike Kubinski who made proposed changes to the draft. Mike presented the changes to the balloted draft at the TG2 meeting. Robert Urbanowski commented that Dr. Nagy and his group were working on a new draft for the hoses and they will submit a new work item to revise the Purchasing Guidelines at that time. A motion was made by Robert to remove bullets H & N from the Rotary Hose section for this reason.

Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: David Alva

Motion to: Remove bullets H & N from the Rotary Hose section in the Purchasing Guidelines and accept the proposed wording.


Decision: Carried The work item will be closed and removed from the agenda upon publication. Item 9202: Spec 7K requirement for BOP Handling Systems. At the June 2015 Conference, the following activities took place: Chris Ponzi chaired a group meeting on Monday. The work group has not received any feedback regarding the draft changes to the BOP Handling Systems sections that was sent out prior to the 2014 conference. As such, a motion at the WG meeting was passed that the draft changes would be sent to the API 7K Licensees (by Katie Burkle) and again to Item 9202 workgroup members (by Chris Ponzi) for input with a deadline of a number of days (suggested 60 days). The workgroup would review the input received and adjust the draft changes as needed prior to sending to ballot. At the TG2 meeting, a motion was made by Robert Urbanowski to pass the draft to the API 7K Licensees.

Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Chris Ponzi

Motion to: Pass the draft to the API 7K Licensees and 7K mailing list for comments.

Decision: Carried

Ongoing agenda item

Item 0202: Coverage of Drawworks versus Drawworks Components. The work group had several meetings during 2015 and made some significant progress. At the June 2015 Conference, the following activities took place: The work group met on Monday and reviewed the entire draft and made some changes based on the feedback and discussion. It was suggested that the draft should be circulated to the 7K licensees for review. It was also suggested the draft be reviewed by well services contractors. The work group may require two to three more meetings before a draft is ready for circulation and ballot. At the TG2 meeting, the draft was discussed and comments were made regarding the inclusion of the current load path carrying components. It was noted that API 7K already has that covered. It was also suggested to review API 7L for possible changes due to this work item. The work group will address the above issues. Robert Urbanowski suggested that once the draft is completed, it should be sent to the task group for comments prior to ballot.

Ongoing agenda item


Item 2202 and Item 3201: Hose for use in Underbalanced and Gas Drilling/ Proposed Increase to Rated Pressure of Mud and Cement Hoses At the June 2015 Conference, the following activities took place: Item 2202 and 3201 were combined (and will be referred hereafter in SC8 as Item 2202). Dr. Nagy held a group meeting on Monday to resolve 31 comments received. It was agreed by the work group to recirculate the revised draft to the API Licensees before balloting. A motion was made by Robert Urbanowski to circulate the revised draft to TG2 and API 7K Licensees for review and comments.

Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Anthony Mannering

Motion to: Circulate the revised draft to TG2 and API 7K Licensees for review and comments.

Decision: Carried

Ongoing agenda item Item 3203: Dropping Power Tongs from the scope of covered equipment At June 2015 conference, the following activities took place: During comments resolution, an editorial change was made in section 4.6.3 to remove reference to Power Tongs. A motion was made by Mark Sibille to accept the revised draft as is.

Motion by: Mark Sibille Second by: Bob Donnally Motion to: Accept the revised draft Decision: Carried

The work item will be closed and removed from the agenda

API 7k 6th Edition Draft Need to resolve comments for the following ballots • Ballot 2493, Item 7009 - spider definition

During balloting of this work item, there was one comment by Robert Urbanowski that was not resolved regarding the use of spiders as elevators. Kurt Vandervort explained the differences between 7K spiders and other spiders that are used as elevators and that those should be covered under 8C. Robert was satisfied with the explanation. A motion was made Mark Sibille to keep draft as is.


Motion by: Mark Sibille Second by: Kurt Vandervort Motion to: Accept the revised draft “as-is” Decision: Carried

• Ballot 2641 - process requiring validation

A comment by Anthony Mannering regarding specific preload value required by the design. Shawn Firenza resolved this comment and Anthony withdrew his comment.

Motion by: Shawn Firenza Second by: Chris Ponzi Motion to: Accept comment resolution Decision: Carried

• Ballot 2399 - non-metallic tongs, section 6.4.6.3.

A ballot comment was made by Mark Sibille that ASTM D4268 has been withdrawn and needed to be replaced with either Cordage Institute CI-1500, CI-1501 or ASTM D885M Standard Test Method for Tire Cords, Tire Cord Fabric and Industrial Yarn made from manufactured organic- base fibers.

Pat Johnson and Mark Sibille agreed on replacing ASTM D4268 with CI-1500 upon verification and comment was resolved (After the conference, this verification was completed by Pat Johnson). Mark Sibille made a motion to accept the comment resolution. Motion by: Mark Sibille Second by: Robert Urbanowski Motion to: Accept comment resolution Decision: Carried

After resolving all comments, a motion was made by Mark Trevithick to send out the API 7K 6th Edition draft to TG2 for final review.

Motion by: Mark Trevithick Second by: Mark Sibille Motion to: Send out the API 7k 6th Edition to TG2 for final review Decision: Carried

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 August 10, 2012 and passed ballot


New Business – Drilling and Well Servicing Equipment (Items 52XX): NWI 5201: Impact Requirements A new work item by Bob de Pont to add missing impact property requirements for material at design temperature and SR2. After further discussion, it was agreed that Bob de Pont can handle this work item while reviewing the API 7K 6th edition review and can make the editorial changes. Bob de Pont made a motion to withdraw work item 5201 from the agenda.

Motion by: Bob de Pont Second by: Mark Sibille Motion to: Withdraw new work item 5201 from the agenda Decision: Carried

The work item will be closed and removed from the agenda

NWI 5202: API 7L: Revise to align with changes to 7K regarding hoses A new work item was submitted by Dr. Nagy. Dr. Nagy explained that his current WG on item 3201 will work on this as well. NWI 5203: Makeup and Breakout machines (Iron Roughneck) / Power Tong

Adrian Lis proposed a new work item to add Power Tongs back into 7K with more meaningful requirement. He was asked to complete new item form and submit at the SC8 meeting. Ongoing agenda item

NWI 5204: Review of Licensee Information Form Katie Burkle proposed a review of the 7K licensee information form, and update the form based on any changes to the scope of licensed equipment.

Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Mark Sibille

Motion to: Edit TG 2 minutes to add the WI 5204 license information form, and amend the BOP Handling motion in the minutes to include 7K mailing list. Accept minutes with corrections

Decision: Carried unanimously Ongoing agenda item C. TG3 Task Group on Hoisting Equipment – Ken Kondo API 8C:


API 8C 5th edition was published April 2012, and is effective October 2012; Errata to specifications was published in May 2014. Item 0301: Review of API Purchasing Guidelines. At the June 2015 Conference, the following activities took place: Balloted under Ballot ID 3454, reached consensus, and comments resolved. Item is complete and will be removed from 2016 agenda.

Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Mark Trevithick Motion to: Accept proposed change in wording (editorial) Decision: Carried

The work item will be closed and removed from the agenda Item 3301: Nominal Equivalent Stress - API 8C Section 4.3.4. At the June 2015 Conference, a workgroup meeting took place: At that meeting, it was noted that based on the feedback the philosophy pursued as an outcome of last year’s meeting would not work and would not lead to a work product that would pass ballot, so the workgroup recognized the need to change philosophy. A motion was offered, seconded, and unanimously accepted to request of TG3 that the scope of their work be expanded to include the specification paragraphs 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 to allow the involvement of plastic and/or elastic/plastic analysis as a part of the overall design/analysis/test process. A second motion of the workgroup was made, seconded and unanimously approved drafting a proposed method for implementation and the workgroup will meet in September or October to consider the implementation of the above motion into 8C. Those who would volunteer to work on this effort are to contact Kurt in September and we will set the first meeting soon after that. Workgroup chair Kurt Vandervort asked the TG3 task group to expand his workgroup scope per notes from the workgroup meeting of Monday June 22nd.

Motion by: Mark Sibille Second by: Bob de Pont Motion to: Accept recommendations of work group Decision: Carried

Ongoing agenda item

Item 3302: API Specification 8C Marking Requirements At the June 2015 Conference, the following activities took place:


A draft proposal was presented to TG3 by Randy Pyrch for specification changes regarding load rating on top drive.

Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Mark Sibille Motion to: Accept Work Group’s proposed wording and send to letter ballot

Decision: Carried – one objection; Samir questioned name tags falling off, but it was noted that they are to be “permanent”

Letter Ballot Item Ongoing agenda item API RP 8B: API RP 8B 8th edition was published and is effective May 1, 2014. WI 4301: Sheave Rim Groove and WI 4302: Sheave Bore Centerline. At the June 2015 Conference, the following activities took place: Work group chair Robert Urbanowski presented minutes from WG including the proposed changes for profile and tread wear in RP 8B. TG3 recommended to maintain the reference to API 9B for sheave groove tolerances, but to not repeat the same data from RP9B for tolerances.

Motion by: Mark Sibille Second by: Mike Kubinski

Motion to: Remove the sheave tolerance and equal signs from reference to API RP 9B.

Decision: Carried

Motion by: Mark Sibille Second by: Paul Boeckman

Motion to:

• Send items above to SC8 TG3 for sixty (60) days comment period

• This workgroup review comments received • After disposition by this workgroup of all received

comments, send this item to letter ballot. Decision: Carried

Motion by: Paul Boeckman Second by: Anthony Mannering Motion to: Follow recommendations of work group as shown 60 days etc. Decision: Carried


Ongoing agenda item Item 4302 Sheave Bore Centerline At the June 2015 Conference, the following activities took place: The workgroup from the June 4, 2015 workgroup meeting had recommended this item be dropped in that the perpendicularity of the sheave bore centerline was one of many tolerances or features that might be added, but there lacked an perceived industry need to fix existing problems with sheaves based on this lack.

Motion by: Randy Pyrch Second by: Faisal Yousef Motion to: Follow recommendation of work group Decision: Carried

The work item will be closed and removed from the agenda Item 4303 Change and Addition to 8.6.1 for Additional Components This item was balloted under Ballot ID 3526, reached consensus, and comments resolved. TG3 had no further discussions on Item 4303; item is complete and will be removed from 2016 agenda. The work item will be closed and removed from the agenda Item 4304: Prototype Testing of Wash pipes with Mechanical Seals At the June 2015 Conference, the following activities took place: Cliff Swiontek presented proposed specification wording from the workgroup meeting on Monday. Faisal Yousef questioned if the proposal was using the latest version of 9.9.3 and the workgroup agreed to review and make changes as needed.

Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Faisal Yousef

Motion to: Once wording is massaged to meet latest version of 9.9.3, the proposed version will be issued for letter ballot.

Decision: Carried – one objection (Samir Ghalayini)

Letter Ballot Item Ongoing agenda item New Business: Hoisting Equipment (Items 53XX):


NWI 5301: Acceptance Criteria for Non-Ferromagnetic Metals At the June 2015 Conference, the workgroup held its first meeting with Pat Johnson as chairman. Pat Johnson presented the request made by Barry Phillips with MW Wirth for the development of acceptance criteria for non-ferromagnetic materials by the liquid penetrant method. Pat Johnson presented a rough draft using ASTM A903 a basis for criteria. Bob de Pont raised concerns as this did not address the fracture toughness of particular materials. It was mentioned that AMS 2175 is more specific relating to various types of materials.

Motion by: Manolete Mena Second by: Bob de Pont

Motion to: That AMS 2175 be examined to be the basis for acceptance criteria for non-ferromagnetic castings.

Decision: Carried unanimously At which meeting did motion take place and to which group of attendees will Pat’s draft be sent to? Pat Johnson will obtain a copy of AMS 2175 and write a rough draft of the acceptance criteria. He will send the draft by email to all attendees at the meeting with the goal of obtaining a draft for vote by the meeting in the summer of 2016 Ongoing agenda item NWI 5302: Impact Property Requirements for Design Temperature and for SR2

At the June 2015 Conference, the following activities took place:

Bob de Pont discussed that standard requirement is lower than SR 2 requirement. Raise impact properties to be same as 7K to be consistent.

Motion by: Bob de Pont Second by: Mark Sibille Motion to: Accept new work item Decision: Carried

Bob de Pont – Chairman, with Work Group of Mark Sibille, Andre Vierke, Kelly Carl, Randy Pyrch, Manolete Mena

Motion by: Bob de Pont Second by: Mark Trevithick

Motion to:

Change impact properties of 9.8.3.4 elevator slips. (Same as 7K) 33 J (25 ft/lbs) at -20 degrees C (-4 degrees F) avg. 3 tests with no individual value less than 26 J (19 ft/lbs) – send to letter ballot

Decision: Carried – Samir Ghalayani made comment to look into further *Robert suggests having a New Work item number for the above to be sent to letter ballot. New Work Item 5305 (Motion to accept the work item passed, with a volunteer roster)


Letter Ballot Item Ongoing agenda item NWI 5303: Scope of API 8C to be In Line with Scope of API 7K

At the June 2015 Conference, the following activities took place: Bob de Pont submitted the new work item and has volunteered to be chairman of work group. Bob discussed wording of scope as submitted in new item work. Change scope to: This specification provides general principles and specifies requirements for design, manufacture, and testing of new hoisting equipment suitable for use in drilling and production operations and of replacement primary load-carrying components manufactured subsequent to the publication of this specification. Keep specification 8C in line with API 7K and have requirements for replacement primary load bearing replacement parts Mark Sibille discussed the concept of replacement parts meeting the specs with this wording.

Motion by: Bob de Pont Second by: Paul Boeckman Motion to: Send to letter ballot as proposed Decision: Carried

Letter Ballot Item Ongoing agenda item WI 5304: API 8C Requirement to Test Elevator with Bore/Configuration Generating Highest Stresses & API 8B Requirement Reload Testing After Reboring Bob de Pont submitted the New Work Item and volunteered to be Chairman of Work Group. At the June 2015 Conference, the following activities took place: Bob de Pont discussed 5.5 alternative design verification and suggested that testing should be with the bore configuration that produces the worst stresses and that this would be good engineering practice.

API 8C section 5.5 Alternative Design verification test procedure and rating Add requirement to test elevator with the bore/configuration that generates highest stresses in the parts. API RP 8B: add requirements for reload test after re-boring API 8C section 9.8.3.6. is the use of “dummy pins” during load testing allowed, why would original pins be load tested and replacement pins not, one can provide a new elevator to the field with a replacement pin installed Need to be more specific on DVT and load testing requirements


Motion by: Bob de Pont Second by: Andre Vierue

Motion to: Accept new work item to form work group to work on these items

Decision: Carried

Ongoing agenda item

NWI 5305 Impact Property Requirements for Design Temperature and for SR2 At the June 2015 Conference, the following activities took place: Work item scope is that of NWI 5302, less the ballot portion of that work item (5302 will be closed upon ballot and resolution). Ongoing agenda item API requested guidance on when to publish closed work items. Depending on the number of NWI that have been resolved, API can publish at any appropriate time. The SC8 Chair requested that the TG3 chair put together a list of passed items ready for publication and circulate to API staff and SC8 chair.

Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Samir Ghalagini

Motion to: Accept the minutes as presented including the expansion of the scope of Item 3301.

Decision: Carried unanimously D. API Monogram Program – Shawn Adams (API Monogram Staff) Reviewed PowerPoint presentation

1. SC8 to MPB liaison is Shawn Adams 2. Standards committee liaison program to help improve lines of communication between

MPB and SC. 3. MPB and Monogram 2020 4. Increase audit effectiveness; by improving the questions given to auditors. 5. Color Coding of Product Specifications 6. Products eligible for monogramming 7. Audit Questions: API wants assistance from SC 8 to improve the quality of the product

specification questions given to auditor prior to audits. 8. Auditor tools and training material for auditors, SC5 established a “Audit

Effectiveness” task group. API is asking SC8 to develop a similar TG within the SC8. 9. Call for Papers – API GIS AXIS 2016 an exhibition on International Standards

Questions: 1. How does API develop the questions for auditors?


2. API 7K is getting ready for publication, which performs color coding of documents. 3. Can you please explain the color coding process? 4. Will the color coded document be sent out to SC8?

E. Report from SC18/MPB Liaison – Shawn Firenza

Shawn Firenza presented a PowerPoint presentation on the API Monogram Program. The API Monogram Program will have a definition of manufacturer going forward. • SC18 TG 3 output is in process. MPB recommends commenting on this document. • If API product standard is silent on manufacturing requirements, SC18 TG3 document will

be used by Monogram Program once published. • If API product standard contains manufacturing requirements, they will be used by

Monogram Program in lieu of SC18 TG3 document. The proper use of product questions during an audit is as part of the audit, not a separate activity. • SCs should review adequacy of product questions as part of standard’s development or

revision. API Auditor competency improvements • SC’s should support development of auditor test questions for standards. NCR reporting • API revamping site to better explain use and confidentiality • Use it to report Non-conforming products Non-conforming quality management systems (customer audits)

• Don’t use it for Safety incident reporting

• API Monogram-QR investigates all reports thoroughly and will take action based on their investigation

• API uses the data to help plan the next audit • API can use the data to schedule an un-planned audit API Monogram program website • Adding Monogram specific educational information to the website F. TG4 Task Group on Wire Rope & Roller Chain – Dennis Fetter API 7F: API 7F 8th edition was published, and is effective November 1, 2011 In the SC8 meeting, discussion was held to consider reaffirmation of API 7F Roller Chain for another 5 years.


Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Samir Ghalayini Motion to: Reaffirmation for another 5 year API 7F on roller chain.

Decision: Carried unanimously API 7F reaffirmed for another 5 years API 9A: API 9A 26th edition was published May 1, 2011, and is effective November 2011. Errata were published in October 2012. In the SC8 meeting, discussion was held to consider reaffirmation of API 9A Wire Rope for another 5 years.

Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Anthony Mannering Motion to: Reaffirmation for another 5 year API Spec 9A on wire rope. Decision: Carried unanimously

API 9A reaffirmed for another 5 years API 9B: API 9B 13th edition was published October 2011. Errata 2 was published in January 2013 (includes Errata 1 dated April 2012). Item 1402 – Wire rope design factors for setting BOPs At the June 2015 Conference, the following activities took place: Mikael Pederson updated the group on the recent progress. There has not been much activity since last year but will continue to work in the coming year. Current discussions are centered on determining if the design factor for the drilling line when setting the BOP should be raised from 2 to a higher value or specifically listed as “2” instead of falling under “infrequent operations” as currently listed in the specification. Dennis Fetter commented that a design factor of 2 is very low for wire rope and can permanently damage the rope. More information is needed from drilling contractors as to whether a design factor of 2 is routinely approached and if a higher design factor would be a realistic expectation. Robert Urbanowski commented that typically operations do not reach a 2:1 Design Factor but routinely go below a 3:1.


Mikael asked for additional members and the following people volunteered: Samir Ghalayini; Bob Donnally; Patrick Alfarone, Andrew Roskey At this time the only focus is on the design factor for setting the BOP. Concerns with the other design factors will need to be brought to the attention of the group before being addressed. Chair: asked if the WI has been expanded to focus on all safety factors or just BOP? Answer: WI has not been expanded. Ongoing agenda item Item 4401: API RP-9B Revision All ballots were affirmative. 8 comments were submitted with 3 editorials. The other comments will be addressed by Mike Seminatore as new business. API RP-9B revision will go to editors on July 16th. This item will be dropped from the agenda. The work item will be closed and removed from the agenda New Business: Wire Rope & Roller Chain (Items 54XX): NWI 5401 – Improve clarity of API RP-9B paragraph 2.3.3.5, 2.3.5 and 2.7 (fleet angle) Mike Seminatore’s comments regarding API 9B were discussed.

2.3.3.5 : When approaching 2:1 design factor for wire rope, efficiencies due to the D/d ratio need to be addressed. 2.3.5 Application of Loads: Suggesting adding clarity (in reference to shock loads causing damage to the rope) 2.7 Fleet Angle: a) Clarity needed. Very little information is currently provided and the fleet angle isn’t defined. Mike recommends adding info on calculating as well as min / max fleet angle recommendations. Different types of fleet angles were discussed and the focus was suggested to be limited to the fleet angle between the drum and fast sheave. It was also recommended to address the effects of improper fleet angles, such as: Piling up on flange or open spooling.

Mike Seminatore will submit a New Work Instruction to include all three comments into the same work instruction. The goal is to improve the clarity of the document with respect to 2.3.3.5, 2.3.5, and 2.7.

Motion by: Robert Urbanowski


Second by: Mark Sibille

Motion to: Accept a NWI to increase clarity in API 9B regarding 2.3.3.5, 2.3.5, and 2.7

Decision: Carried Workgroup: Mike Seminatore (Chair), Norman Dyer, Paul Boeckman, Robert Urbanowski, Mark Trevithick, Brent Dein, Patrick Alfarone, Samir Ghalayini.

Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Anthony Mannering Motion to: Accept minutes as presented by TG 4 chair. Decision: Carried unanimously

Ongoing agenda item Dennis Fetter announced retirement after 35 years as TG4 chair New TG 4 chair (Brent Dein) was asked to reach out to all 7F licensees to request volunteers for revising API Spec 7F G. TG5 Task Group on Hammer Unions – Cindy Taff & Jason Peart 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 by API Ballot ID 3188 which closed 10-Apr-2014. API Hammer Union Specification: Item 9501: Hammer Union Specification. Cindy Taff (Shell) and Jason Peart (Shell) are co-chairing this work group. This group has approved API funding for design testing. The work group has actively been developing the draft specification. Based on the analysis done last year, the team reviewed and determined the need to re-run some of the analysis with tighter tolerances (under the same budget as the TG had funds left over). This should be the last phase of the engineering work before finalizing the spec. The TG is targeting to get the technical spec complete and issued in 2015.

The SC8 Chair requested that Robert Urbanowski discuss with Cindy Taff the plan for moving forward and an update on the funding. Also, Robert Urbanowski volunteered to ask Cindy about fire ratings for hammer unions.

Ongoing agenda item


H. TG6 Task Group to review and make recommendations concerning SC18:TG3 Status Report of 23-Jan-2014 and its potential effects on SC8 licensees – Bo Creek

SC18:TG3 was originally charged with the task to “develop a definition for a manufacturer”; this scope was expanded to include “Have a study conducted and recommendations made on the appropriate licensee classifications which organizations should be qualified per a given specification, i.e., assembler, steel manufacturer, etc.” Task group meeting was held on March 23, 2015 at NOV, Houston, TX Task group meeting highlights: • Discussion of SC18:TG3 Technical Report • Partial Recommendations of SC18:TG3 Finding Report • Update on Future Actions from SC18:TG3 • Review API 6D Implementation of SC18/TG3 Recommendations • Discussion Items for SC 8 Product Specifications • Recommendations for SC 8 Product Specifications • Drafted letter for Katie Burkle to send with SC18 Technical Report (TR) ballot • Schedule Next Meeting Task Group Recommendations: • Delay work on specification changes until results of comment ballot on the SC18 document

are reviewed and results communicated. • The team decided that our first step will be to promote awareness of the upcoming changes

and the potential impact on our product specifications. • Everyone should review the upcoming ballot and provide relevant comments • When responding to SC18 Technical Report (TR) ballot it is imperative that you include

suggested changes or SC18/TG3 will not respond or address the comment/concern.

Motion by: Mark Trevithick Second by: Dennis Fetter

Motion to: Motion to approve issuance of draft letter to go with the SC18 Technical Report (TR) ballot with the change of modifying “SC8:TG6” to “SC8”


Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Bo Creek

Motion to:

Modify the scope of TG6 to include: TG to take one SC8 product specification (with highest licensee number world-wide) and implement minimum manufacturing requirements into document.

Decision: Carried unanimously The SC8 Chair recommends that TG6 chair request participation from SC8:TG5 (Cindy or Jason)


Ongoing agenda item

4. STANDARDS APPROACHING END OF 5YR REVIEW CYCLE • API 7F 8th edition was published November 1, 2010, making the end of its five (5) year

cycle 31-October-2015.

API 7F reaffirmed for another 5 years • API 7K 5th edition was published June 2010 and is effective November 1, 2011, making

the end of five (5) year cycle 31-October-2016. There is on-going work to get the 6th

edition published.

Motion by: Shawn Firenza Second by: Faisal Yousef Motion to: To request a 2 year extension of 7K Decision: Carried unanimously

A 2 year extension for API 7K is requested of CSOEM.

• API 9A 26th edition was published May 1, 2011, making the end of its five (5) year cycle

30-April-2016.

API 9A reaffirmed for another 5 years

• API RP 9B 13th edition was published October 2011, making the end of its five (5) year

cycle 30-September-2016. The 14th edition has been balloted and is under resolution of comments. Will be published prior to 2016 (ready for publication)

5. DOCUMENTS NOW IN PRINT

Errata to API 8C 5th edition was published in May 2014. API RP 8B 8th edition was published in May 2014.

6. NEW WORK ITEMS (NWI) PROPOSAL REVIEW & APPROVAL New Work Item: Bob Donnally (NOV) (Slide 18). Bob presented slides on design testing and validation, proper environmental conditions, proper electrical, crown block pictures, advanced drawworks design in 7K, advanced machinery arrangements, and the cleanliness of work items. (Done purely in jest showing a document more than 80 years old addressing these issues – no NWI needed!)


7. RESEARCH FUNDING – Report by Katie Burkle (API Staff) SC8 TG1 has a current Stress Engineering project as discussed above. Additional funding for phase 2 was requested at June CSOEM Meeting SC8 TG5 Hammer Union group has approved funding for testing hammer unions built to their draft Specification in 2013.

8. OTHER NEW BUSINESS

None.

9. ADJOURNMENT

Motion by: Shawn Firenza Second by: Brent Dein Motion to: Adjourn Decision: Carried unanimously

meeting minutes of api subcommittee on drilling …mycommittees.api.org/standards/ecs/sc8/meeting...

Documents