minutes 85 exploration and production standards ......minutes – joint api &iso meeting page 4...

MINUTES 85

th Exploration and Production Standards Conference on

Oilfield Equipment and Materials 23rd Joint Meeting of API SC 17 & ISO/TC67/SC4/WG6

Subsea Production Equipment Calgary, Alberta, Canada

June 25, 2008

1. John Bednar, API SC 17 Chairman, welcomed the group to the meeting at 8:00 AM and outlined various safety and housekeeping issues.

2. A roll call was completed and it was confirmed that there was a quorum present

for this meeting. An update was given on voting categories of the membership. (Attachment A)

3. The agenda was adopted (Attachment B) 4. The minutes from the 22nd Joint Meeting, held in San Francisco were reviewed

and approved by the attendees.

5. The latest Work Program Listing (Attachment C) was presented and the Action items were reviewed and updated/added as appropriate (Attachment D) throughout the meeting.

6. Task Group Chair/Project Group Leader reports.

a. ISO 13628-1/API RP 17A---Subsea Production Systems---

i. Per Ragnar Dahl gave formal report on Materials prepared by Ragnar Mollan

1. Material requirements in ISO 13628 standards – Subsea Materials Task Group (Attachment E) Material requirements in ISO 13628 standards - Subsea Materials Task Group.

a. The Task Group had prepared and agreed that two draft Amendments to ISO 13628-1 be circulated for ballot:

i. Clause 6 of ISO 13628-1, "Materials and corrosion protection",

ii. Annex L, “Materials and welding of manifold piping and jumpers".

b. While the review on Clause 6 was underway during July 2007, another materials document with an overlapping scope was being developed by ISO TC67/WG8. This alternate document for Materials

MINUTES – Joint API &ISO Meeting June 25, 2008

Selection and Corrosion Control for Oil and Gas Production Systems was labeled ISO 21457.

c. Per Dahl reported that the CD for ISO 21457 included the material contained in Clause 6 and that the joint ISO/API SC17 workgroup therefore, unilaterally, made a decision that Clause 6 should not be released for DIS vote until comments on the ISO 21457 CD had been received (estimated 2nd Qtr.2009).

d. Concern was raised about the fact that the joint ISO/API SC17 workgroup had unilaterally made a decision that impacted progress on SC 17 documents with little to no input from the SC 17 team.

e. Motion made and passed for API to form a perpetual task group to ensure our representation for material matters. Mike Byrd, BP, volunteered to lead this TG.

f. Motion made and passed for SC17 to proceed with issue of the correct revised version of Clause 6 for DIS ballot for 13628-1.

ii. Per Ragnar Dahl gave formal report on dash 1 (API 17A) -- See Task Group Chair report (Attachment F)

1. A draft for an official Amendment to ISO 13628-1 Clause 6, Materials and corrosion protection‖ has been prepared, together with a proposal for a new Annex L "Materials and Welding of Subsea Manifolds". These documents were approved 2007-02-22 as proposed Draft International Standard (DIS).

2. Annex L Amendment may be sent to the ISO Central Secretariat September 2008 and the Clause 6 DIS ballot to go out in November.

3. A total revision to the standard will be started Winter 2008 (Rev. II)

4. Harold Reeves volunteered to pick up the chair for API 17A.

b. ISO 13628-11/API RP 17B, ISO 13628-2/API 17J & ISO 13628-10/API 17K Flexible Pipe ISO 13628-16/API 17 L1 and ISO 13628-17/API RP 17L2 Ancillary Equipment for Flexible Pipe—

i. The formal report was given by Krassimir Doynov. ii. Task Group Chair report (Attachment G) iii. In March 2008, API initiated the adopt-back of -2 & -11 to 17J&B –

a process that follows ANSI rules and procedure and paperwork. Completion of ANSI paperwork is expected by June, 2008.

iv. API has formally declined the TG request for funding the API 17L Work Group with an Internet Forum on its website, or alternatively by renting an Internet Forum already established by MCS. ISO/TC67/SC4/WG6 has not responded yet to Krassimir Doynov’s request.

Bold Text changed by agreement per June 2009 Joint SC 17 / ISO TC67/SC4/WG6 Meeting


v. Ed Baniak reported that this or any other SC17 TG can use API sanctioned Share Point and Web Meeting at no cost to the TG.

c. ISO 13628-3 (API RP 17C) ---TFL Systems i. The formal report was given by Harold Reeves. ii. See TG chair report (Attachment H)

d. ISO 13628-4 (API 17D) ---Subsea Wellheads and Trees

i. The formal report was given by Ross Fraser. ii. See TG chair report (Attachment I) iii. The task group has been working steadily to review the 136+ pages

of comments received in March, 2007. Nine meetings have been held since receiving the comments and approximately 75% have been reviewed.

iv. DIS is to be re-released to include Annex L which addresses wellhead and tree connector qualifications.

e. ISO 13628-5 (API 17E) --- Production Umbilicals i. The formal report was given by John McManus. ii. See Task Group Chair report (Attachment J) iii. The DIS passed vote with comments. Comments to be reconciled

by end of 3rd Quarter 2008. iv. FDIS is expected to be published January 2009. v. Revised API 17E expected to be published September 2009.

f. ISO 13628-6 (API 17F) --- Production Controls

i. The formal report was given by Jens-Henrich Neuenkirchen. ii. No written report available. iii. API 17F published June 15 2007. iv. TG leadership has determined that it is time to begin work on a new

revision to 17F. v. Work will begin on drafting new scope of work for revision. A new

structure will be proposed whereby a core controls document will be developed with annexes for each individual component.

vi. Next meeting is planned for January 2009. vii. John Bodine, API Chair, has resigned his chairmanship position

due to long term reassignment to a Brazilian project. A new API Chair was not identified.

g. ISO 13628-7 (API RP 17G) --- Completion/Workover Risers

i. Brian Skeels submitted the formal report. ii. See Task Group Chair report (Attachment K). iii. TG is to present a revised document with minor editorial/clerical

changes to Ed Baniak for errata publication. iv. A new work item request has been submitted for ISO 13628-7,

revision 3 to be carried out in six parts. Four will be lead by the API 17G task group, one by the ISO task group, and one done jointly.


This effort is independent of a supplemental work item that corrects published errors in the current revision (version 2) of 13628-7.

v. TG meeting every other month and expects to have a CD available by years end.

vi. API task group voted to table Light Well Intervention and Coiled Tubing documents for now and focus on upgrading 17G so that it can support these subsequent documents later.

h. ISO 13628-13 (API RP 17H)---ROV Interfaces & ROT Intervention

Systems i. The formal reports were submitted by Eric Luzi and Charles White. ii. See Task Group Chair report (Attachment L) iii. Two Workgroup meetings have been held in 2007 and two in 2008. iv. CD planned ready for review late November 2008 v. The new H is not expected to be completed before the end of 2009.

2010 is more likely. 1. H & M are both dated 2004 and thus need to be revalidated

by the end of 2009. vi. Motion made and passed to immediately put H&M up for

reaffirmation ballot, without comment, to insure that they are not inadvertently withdrawn while document is being formally revised.

i. ISO/WD 13628- 12 (API RP 2RD) -- Dynamic Risers for Floating Production

i. The formal report submitted by John McManus on behalf of Paul Stanton.

ii. See Task Group Chair report (Attachment M) iii. A JIP by MCS and DNV to expedite the TG work was kicked off

May 7, 2008. iv. The first final draft, Rev. A, is scheduled to be completed by the

end of January 2009. v. Final draft is envisioned to be complete April 2009.

j. API RP 17N -- Subsea Reliability and Technical Risk Management

i. Report presented by John Allan. ii. See Task Group Chair report (Attachment N) and 17N power point

presentation (Attachment O) iii. The non-binding ballot for comment for the 17N committee draft

was well received. 1. There were no outright negative comments. 2. All comments were overwhelmingly positive.

iv. Motion made and passed to go for full API ballot and comment.

k. API RP 17O -- HIPPS i. Report presented by Brian Skeels on behalf of Christopher Curran. ii. See Task Group Chair report (Attachment P)


iii. The working group met in March 2008 to revise and update the draft. This resulted in several sections being revised. Comments and feedback where received and collated by the end of May.

iv. This draft has now been issued to the working group with a request for comments back by the end of June. On receipt of comments, they will be incorporated and the draft issued to API for further review and comment.

v. Final draft is envisioned to be given to API for ballot and comment in September 2008.

vi. Motion made and passed that following receipt of final draft in September that the RP be put out for API ballot and comment.

l. ISO 13628-15 (API RP 17P) -- Templates and Manifolds i. Report presented by Charles White. ii. See Task Group Chair report (Attachment Q) iii. Working Draft agreed by TG to proceed to the ISO Central

Secretariat in February 2008 iv. Draft is anticipated to be approved by the ISO SC for formal ballot

in July 2008 v. Comment was made that H & Q somewhat overlap with P, but

without any due conflict.

m. API RP 17Q -- Recommended Practice for Subsea Qualification i. Report presented by Chris Horan. ii. See Task Group Chair report (Attachment R) iii. Eight (8) separate component task groups have been developed iv. Draft RP is scheduled to be reviewed September 2008 v. Final Draft is scheduled to be reviewed November 2008 vi. Submittal to API for ballot and comment is scheduled for December

2008 vii. Publication is envisioned to be end 1st Quarter 2009

n. Flowline Connection Group

i. Craig Redding identified a lingering need to further define requirements for Flowline Connections. However, it was agreed that no work in this area would be initiated until API 17 P was published.

7. Other Business;

a. Funding - Two funding issues were discussed: i. 17P with Doris Engineering for clerical support ii. 17D with John Fowler to have him review and

comment/recommend a position on absolute vs. differential pressure applications in API.

b. Work Group 6 does not have a representative from SC 17.


i. Action for Leadership Team to have this representative found and in place by winter meeting.

c. Roundtable Session

i. Absolute vs. Differential Pressure and how to or how not to use in Standards Specifications.

ii. Pressure Rating Definition

1. Glen Cupier has formed a mini-task group composed of Mike Byrd, David LaCaze, Gary Hurta and himself to finalize the task of coming up with a definition of pressure rating

a. J. McManus is to send him a copy of the work David Wilkinson did on pressure definitions from various standards

iii. HP/HT Equipment Standardization 1. See attached SC17 roundtable participant comments to 6A

HPHT meeting (Attachment S)

iv. Seamless Standards Specifications

1. Different subsystems are forming their own ―life‖ and not necessarily correlating to existing standards; and often contradicting each other.

2. A seamless vertical infrastructure is required from host all the way to bottom hole.

3. Horizontal integration is also required. Why have totally different building blocks when certain blocks can be shared.

v. Communication Structure that enables E-Field or Integrated Operations

1. There will a SPE Applied Technology Workshop on Subsea Standardization at the in Austin at the Hyatt Regency Lost Pines Resort on December 3-4, 2008. This workshop will focus on:

a. identifying the value of subsea standardization b. identifying barriers to implementation of subsea

standardization c. understanding what levels of standardization may be

available, and d. how to create a ―path of least resistance‖ to

acceptance and use of subsea standardization. vi. Update on API’s acceptance/rejection of the new ASME Sec 8

Div.2 rules

1. ASME Sec 8 Div 2 Part 4 utilizes a static review with the same safety factors as used before


2. ASME Sec 8 Div 2 Part 5 requires all reviews to be conducted with FEA.

3. 17D is the only SC17 standard that would be affected by the new Div 2 rules

a. 17D is allowed to use either the old version Part 4 or the new version Part 5 and will refer back to 6A for any comment.

vii. Update from Chris Horan, ExxonMobil on status of the 17Q group

1. Report presented by Chris Horan

2. See attached presentation (Attachment T) viii. NWI for a RP for the Avoidance of Blockages in Subsea Production

Control and Chemical Injection Systems (John McManus)

1. NWI presented by John McManus.

2. See attached API NWI SRRR (Attachment U)

3. It was agreed that J. McManus obtain permission to show JIP write up to selected members of the SC17 team to ensure that SC17 would indeed sanction such an RP

a. Dave LaCaze, Tim Dean, Mike Byrd, and Craig Redding volunteered to receive the document in confidence.

ix. NWIP from ISO on Reliability Modeling 1. See attached Outline and ISO NWI Proposals (Attachment

V) 2. Mike Byrd (Chairman), Brian Skeels, John Allen and Jans

Hendric Neuenkirken to form a mini-task group to better define/understand scope as the subject is a system issue that encompasses operations and more subsystems than just subsea. To further determine SC 17’s interest.

8. Actions Items were reviewed and updated during the course of the meeting.

9. Next Meeting –

a. SC 17 Winter 2008 will remain in Houston and not be part of the API Winter

Meetings in San Antonio. b. Summer June 22 - 26 2009 API Annual Summer Standardization

Conference in Westminster, Colorado.

kurylac

Text Box

Attachment A

Attachment B

AGENDA 85th Exploration and Production Standards Conference on Oilfield Equipment and Materials

23rd Joint Meeting API Subcommittee17 & ISO/TC67/SC4/WG6 - Subsea Production Equipment

Hyatt Regency, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Wednesday, June 25, 2008

API Subcommittee 17 Chair: John Bednar

8:00 AM – 1:00 PM 1. Opening of the meeting:

a. Safety Issues b. Housekeeping Issues

2. Roll call to establish quorum: a. Establish quorum b. Update on voting categories

3. Adoption of the proposed agenda 4. Adoption of the minutes from 22nd joint meeting held in San Francisco, California (June 2007) 5. Roster Update 6. Status of Work Plan and Action Plan update 7. Task Group Chair/Project Group Leader reports:

a. ISO 13628-1/API RP 17A---Subsea Production Systems i. Subsea Materials Task Group ii. Report on 13628-1 (API 17A)

b. ISO 13628-11/API RP 17B, ISO 13628-2/API 17J & ISO 13628-10/API 17K --- Flexible Pipe

c. ISO 13628-16/API RP 17L1 and ISO 13628-17/API RP 17L2 --- Ancillary Equipment for Flexible Pipe

d. ISO 13628-3/API 17C ---TFL Systems e. ISO 13628-4/API 17D ---Subsea Wellheads and Trees f. ISO 13628-5/API 17E --- Production Umbilicals g. ISO 13628-6/API 17F --- Production Controls h. ISO 13628-7/API 17G --- Completion/Workover Risers i. ISO 13628-13/API 17 R---ROV Interfaces & ROT Intervention Systems j. ISO/WD 16389/API RP 2RD -- Dynamic Risers for Floating Production k. ISO 20815/API RP 17N -- Subsea Reliability and Technical Risk Management l. API 17O – High Integrity Pressure Protection System (HIPPS) m. ISO 13628-15/API 17P -- Templates and Manifolds n. API 17Q – Subsea Qualification o. Flowline Connection Group p. Intervention Workover Control Systems (IWOCS)

8. Summary of Discussion of Prior meetings: a. Buoyancy and Insulation Aspects b. Subsea Metering c. Installation reels d. Getting information out to the industry

9. Other Business: a. Funding – Open Contracts b. Work Group 6 Representation from SC 17 c. Roundtable Session

10. Actions Items 11. Upcoming Meetings:

Attachment B

a. E&P 2009 API Winter Conference in San Antonio, TX (January 19-23, 2009) b. E&P 2009 API Summer Conference in Westminster, CO (June 22-26, 2009)

Attachment C & D

SUBSEA PRODUCTION SYSTEMS (SC17) WORK PROGRAM

as of: 8/20/2008

No. Document Ed. Year ISO No. SC17 Status Contact Who

17A RP: Design and Operation of Subsea Production

Systems - General Requirements and Recommendations

4 2006 13628-1 Hurta NWIP Ammendment ballot closed 2/20/07; Next Rev

to consider Drilling Loads and Impact on Wellhead;

New Clause 6 and New Annex L (from 17P) on hold

until 21457 rec'd.

Per Dahl (I Norsk Hydro);

Harold Reeves (A

[email protected])

17B RP: Flexible Pipe 3 2008 13628-11 McManus Document Adopted back by API; No Activity at this

time

Krassimir Doynov (I, A-TG1

[email protected]);

17C RP: Through Flow Line (TFL) Systems 2 2005 13628-3 Hurta No Activity at this time Harold Reeves (A-TG6

[email protected])17D Spec: Subsea Wellhead and Christmas Tree Equipment 1 1992 13628-4 Hurta DIS ballot closed 2/28/07; Comments Resolved.

New DIS to be issued

Ross Frazer (I, A-TG5

[email protected])

Brian Skeels (I, A-TG5 17E Spec: Subsea Umbilicals 3 2003 13628-5 McManus DIS Comments being Resolved (9/2008); FDIS

planned for 2009; Publication projected for 9/2009

Ron Dee (I);

J. McManus (A-TG4

[email protected])17F Spec: Subsea Production Control Systems 2 2006 13628-6 Bednar Time for initiating New Review J-H. Neuenkirchen (I [email protected]);

John Bodine (A-TG2

[email protected])17G RP: Completion/Workover Risers 2 2006 13628-7 Hurta May divide into G1, G2, … IWOCS will remain in 17G.

Considering intervention control issues in next

document; NWI to Edit Supplemental Doc; NWI for

Rev. 3; CD proposed by 12/2008

Anthony Muff (I

[email protected]);

Brian Skeels (A [email protected])

17H RP: Remotely Operated Verhicle (ROV) Interfaces 1 2004 13628-8 Retired Group, now operates under 13628-13

17J Spec: Unbonded Flexible Pipe 2 2008 13628-2 McManus Document Adopted back by API; No Activity at this

time

Krassimir Doynov (I, A-TG1

[email protected]);

17K Spec: Bonded Flexible Pipe 2 2005 13628-10 McManus No Activity at this time Krassimir Doynov (I, A-TG1

[email protected]);

17L1 Spec: Flexible Pipe Ancillary Equipment New 13628-16 McManus NWI Approved 11/17/07; Work Progressing Krassimir Doynov (I, A-TG1

[email protected]);

17L2 RP: Recommended Practice for Flexible Pipe Ancillary

Equip

New 13628-17 McManus NWI Approved 11/17/07; Work Progressing Krassimir Doynov (I, A-TG1

[email protected]);

17M RP: Remotely Operated Tool (ROT) Intervention

Systems

1 2004 13628-9 Retired Group, now operates under 13628-13

17N RP: Subsea Reliability New Bednar Final draft to API 1Q, 2008; John Allan to provide

document to be balloted to SC17

John Allen (A [email protected])

17O RP: High Integrity Pressure Protection System (HIPPS) New Bednar Working Draft under TG review; Document to be

balloted in 9/2008

Chris Lindsey-Curran (A Chris.L-

[email protected])

17P* RP: Templates and Manifolds New 13628-15 McManus Draft in Preparation; Contract to Doris (#2006-

102560); Need Figures and to address overlap

issued; CD by Q3, 2008

Charles White (A [email protected])

17H* RP: ROVs and ROTs (combined 17H & 17M) New 13628-13 Hurta Will withdraw existing 17H and retain as new

combined document when complete; Work

ongoing.

Eric Luzi (I [email protected]);

Charles White (A [email protected])

17Q* Subsea Qualification New McManus Draft in Preparation; 5 Sections Created; Dtat Sheet

for each component; Doc for review by Q1, 2009

Olav Inderberg (I

[email protected]);

Chris Horan (A

[email protected])17S* Intervention Workover Control Systems (IWOCS) New 13628-14

Materials Study Group Annexes to Existing ISO docs Ragnar Mollan (I)

John Bednar - Chair ([email protected] ph: 281-249-4325); Gary Hurta ([email protected] ph: 713-939-7711); John McManus ([email protected] ph: 281-854-2063)

2RD RP: Dynamic Risers for Floating Production Installations New 13628-12 Bednar 4 Levels of Criteria: 1-Current2RD; 2-13628-7 Req; 3-

LRFD based on DNV OS F201; 4- RP 1111

Paul Stanton (I, A

[email protected])

Yellow=Document Currently with ActivityKey: *Proposed; (I) = ISO Lead; (A) = API Lead;

Status: Draft

Material requirements in ISO 13628 standards -

Subsea Materials Task Group.

Status report for API SC17-ISO/TC67/SC4/WG6

Meeting Calgary, Alberta, Canada June 25, 2008

Ragnar Mollan, StatoilHydro, Norway (Convenor)

Attachment E

2

Basis

• The joint API SC17 / ISO TC67/SC4/WG6 meeting, Houston 2005-02-03, agreed to solicit support for creating a materials task group to develop the material requirements in the ISO13628 suite of standards. Industry interest has been overwhelming both in the US and in Europe.

• Background for the proposal:

• The industry wants to use the ISO 13628 standards as basis for contracts for subsea production systems.

• The material requirements in the standards need to be further developed to meet industry and end user needs.

• By implementing the materials requirements currently used by the industry in the standards, the need for material requirements in company and projects specifications would be reduced. This would create a more predictable situation for suppliers, manufacturers and contractors.

3

Mandate

1. Propose materials requirements to the 13628 series of standards, with

initial priority on part 1 – General requirements and recommendations.

2. Co-operate with and report to the project leader for ISO 13628,

part 1 initially, and subsequently the other ISO 13628 parts’ project

leaders as relevant.

3. Requirements which are common for most products to be included in

part 1. Requirements related to particular products, to be placed in the

relevant product standard parts 2-11 of 13628.

4. The schedule for the work to be made initially to suit part 1 and

subsequently to suit the revision plan for the product standards parts 2-

11. Temporary use of the product related requirements, until these

standards are revised, to be considered.

4

Task Group meetings held

1. Kick off meeting for the group was held in Houston 6 April 2005, in

connection with the annual NACE Corrosion conference.

2. Second meeting held in Lisbon, Portugal.

(In connection with Eurocorr 2005, 4 September 2005.)

3. Third meeting 1-3 November 2005, Oslo, Norway.

4. Fourth meeting 9-10 March 2006, Houston, Texas.

5. Fifth meeting 19 June 2007 in Houston, Texas.

(In connection with ISO TC67/WG8 meeting 20-21 June 2007. Convenor

and some from the task group met with persons from the US that provided

comments to draft documents in connection with the NWIP ballot.)

6. Sixth meeting 6 June 2008, Oslo, Norway.

(In connection with ISO TC67/WG8 meeting 3-5 June 2008.)

5

Status

• The Task Group has prepared and agreed two draft Amendments to ISO 13628-1:

– A new Clause 6 of ISO 13628-1, "Materials and corrosion protection",

– A new Annex L, "Materials and welding of manifold piping and jumpers".

• The documents were attached to the NWIP circulated 2006-11-22 and were approved 2007-02-22 as proposed Draft International Standards.

• Most comments raised during the NWIP ballot came from the US, and these were dealt with in a meeting 2007-06-19 in Houston, where most of the companies that had provided the comments participated. Consensus was reached regarding evaluation and implementation of all comments.

• The draft documents were submitted to the ISO secretariate for DIS ballot 2007-07-12.

• The documents were sent from the ISO secretariate for DIS ballot 2007-11-01, 5 months hearing period.

• Wrong version (NWIP version circulated 2006-11-22) was used for DIS ballot, not the one submitted to ISO 2007-07-12.

• DIS ballot process was stopped March 2008, immediately before the deadline for DIS comments, 2008-04-01.

6

Status, cont.

• Comments were received from Brazil and Norway.

• The comments were dealt with in meeting 6 June 2008.

• Conclusions from the meeting 6 June 2008:

– Clause 6.Put work on Clause 6 on Hold until comments to the CD for the new materials selection standard ISO 21457 has been received and evaluated. (Tentatively February/March 2008.)

– Annex L.Proceed with the DIS hearing of the version of Annex L which was completed in the meeting. (2008-06-06)

– Hold the next meeting for the subsea materials task group in Houston, Texas when the comments to the DIS Annex L have been received and have been evaluated by the secretariate, tentatively February/March 2008.Meeting to be coordinated with, and held immediately after, next meeting in ISO TC67/WG8 (in Houston) where the comments to ISO 21457 CD will be discussed.

7

Background for placing proposed Amendment to

Clause 6 on Hold

• Since the work on Clause 6 was completed July 2007 another document

with an overlapping scope has been developed by ISO TC67/WG8:

The new standard for Materials Selection and Corrosion Control for Oil

and Gas Production Systems, ISO 21457.

• In the CD for ISO 21457 the scope for Clause 6 has been covered by

text which has a considerably better quality.

• The fact that the result of the work in the Subsea Materials Task Group

has been at staus quo for one year because of “mishaps” in the ISO

secretariate, has triggered a reevaluation of the way forward for

Clause 6.

8

Background for placing proposed Amendment to

Clause 6 on Hold, cont.

• The following principles were concluded in the ISO TC67/WG8 meeting 3-5 June

2008 and the Subsea Materials Task Group meeting 6 June 2008:

– The overlap between ISO 13628-1 and ISO 21457 should be minimised.

– Reference(s) should be from ISO 13628-1 to ISO 21457, and not the

opposite.

– General materials selection principles and usage limits for materials should

be covered in ISO 21457, including subsea production systems.

(For H2S containing service reference is made to ISO 15156.)

– Material requirements which are specific for subsea production systems

should be convered in relevant parts of ISO 13628.

– Materials for wells are kept outside scope of work, in accordance with

previous agreement in WG8. (Well materials excluding tubing hanger are

excluded.)

9

Participants API SC17-ISO/TC67/SC4/WG6 Task Group

10

Participants API SC17-ISO/TC67/SC4/WG6 Task Group, cont.

11

Back-up slides

12

ISO standards Hierarchy – Relevant for material requirements

Materials requirements in ISO Product standards such as those examples

given below takes precedence over material requirements given in

material selection standards.

ISO 13628-1, Subsea production systems.

Example for production trees:

ISO 10423 (API 6A), Surface trees

ISO 13628-4, Subsea trees

Materials requirements in ISO Materials Selection Standards such as

New Material Selection Standard, ISO 21457.

”Sour service” standard, ISO 15156, Part 1-3.

Non-metallic materials, ISO 23936, Part 1-5.

13

1. Most of the work has been conducted based upon e-mail correspondence. The work has been split into two groups, one working on Clause 6 (“Materials and corrosion protection”) and one on Annex L (“Materials and welding of manifold piping and jumpers”).

2. The work has been based upon latest editions of the ISO 13628 standards, i.e. both issued and draft standards.

3. All relevant standards have been available for the group through ISO Livelink on the Internet. Other documents such as presentations, minutes of meetings, etc. have been made available. The work group has not been able to actively use the internet area for commenting.

4. Drafts have been submitted to the group for comments, the comments have been debated and the consensus conclusions have been implemented. All comments and proposed implementation in the documents have been summarized and submitted to the group members together with revised drafts.

5. The group has 35 members. Contributions have been received from several persons who do not appear on the list of members.

Work process - Subsea Materials Task Group

14

How should the ISO materials selection standard

function?Activity Oil company/

End userEngineeringContractor

ISO standard development and maintenance

X X

Project Design BasisX

Conceptual engineering materials selection X X

Front end engineering design materials selection (X) X

Basic engineering(X) X

Detailed engineeringX

Equipment suppliers are not intended to be main users of the standard.

Attachment F

ISO/TC67/SC4/WG6 Subsea production systems

ISO 13628-1 Design and operation of subsea production systems –

Part 1: General recommendations and requirements

Task Group status report – June 2008

1. Membership of task group

ISO Project leaders; Part 1 project leader: Per Ragnar Dahl, StatoilHydro, Norway

Other ISO 13628 project leaders:

Krassimir Doynov - ExxonMobil

Ross Frazer - ATP

Ron Dee - Shell

Jens Henrik Neuenkirchen - StatoilHydro

Antony Muff – FMC

Paul Stanton – Technip

Eric Luzi – StatoilHydro

Ola Melland - Vetco

Other task group members; Olav Inderberg – FMC

David Wilkinson – ExxonMobil

John Bednar – BP

Brian Skeels – FMC

Gary L. Hurta – Dril Quip

Rolf Nordaunet – Vetco

Steve Dean / Giorgio Pastore – Eni

Eric Rambaldi – Total

Mauricio Werneck – Petrobras

Eric Wehner - Cameron

John MacManus – Gibson Tube

ISO/TC67/SC4/WG6

Attachment F

2. Status of work item

ISO 13628-1, second edition was published 2005-11-15. It has been adopted as EN ISO

13628-1, November 2005, and as API RP 17A, fourth edition, January 2006 (identical).

The joint API SC17 and ISO TC67/SC4/WG6 meeting agreed to create a Materials task group

to develop the material requirements in the ISO13628 suite of standards. A draft for an

official Amendment to ISO 13628-1 Clause 6, Materials and corrosion protection” has been

prepared, together with a proposal for a new Annex L "Materials and welding of subsea

manifolds". These documents were approved 2007-02-22 as proposed Draft International

Standard (DIS). Based on comments and workgroup meetings, new proposals were agreed

and issued for a second DIS ballot. Unfortunately the wrong versions were circulated from

ISO secretariat. After this was discovered; the DIS ballot process was stopped March 2008.

In parallel work has been ongoing for development of a more general standard,”Material

Selection and Corrosion Control for Oil and Gas Production Systems” ISO 21457. This

standard will cover materials selection principles and usage limits on a general basis. To

minimise contradictions and overlaps between the two standards, it was therefore decided to

hold back the new Clause 6, so that it could be processed in parallel with development of ISO

21457. Annex L, however, will proceed with DIS comments and ballot of latest version,

completed in meeting 2008-06-06.

3. Updated target dates for deliverables

Annex L Amendment may be sent ISO CS September 2008, and DIS ballot start November.

4. Major issues

No major issues remain to be solved at this moment.

5. Anticipated new work /new work items

Present revision of Part 1 was published November 2005. Below is a list of unsolved issues

and additional issues that should be considered for next revision of the document.

- Separate doc for Annex A to be considered

- Define drilling loads (work has started by DNV for Standards Norway)

- Include separate paragraph to consider physical interface to subsea

processing equipment such as pumps, metering equipment etc.

- Template and manifold (section 5.12 and Annex G) is proposed merged

and pulled out into a separate ISO 13628 part 15 to be co-ordinated with

the API 17P work.

- Commentaries report Ref NO 052.

- Landing speed suggested moved to part 9.

- Ref NO 054. Include running clearances

- NO 055.Consider suction systems.

Attachment F

- Ref US 049. Definition of dropped object protection and trawl resistant

structure.

- US 067. Consider special tests for handling systems etc.

- US 068. Consider reversibility and repeatability tests

- US 076. How does one commission a subsea processing system?

- US 077. Additional information for annex F

- US 079. Active actuators considerations

- US 099 Ref 6.2.1 This section discusses acid-gas related chemical

corrosion on an "agreed-upon model" basis, while direction is given to

correlations for corrosion for oxygen. In section 6.2.1.5, this is related to

flow phenomena. This should probably refer to individual standards,

rather than these specifics.

- Subsea processing issues

- Terminology and definitions to be consistent with the N172 document.

- Revisit the system engineering guidelines

- Flanges design etc.

The initiative to revise the material clause 6 needs to be amalgamated with next revision of

the standard and further developed as necessary.

Future work should also typically examine the need for describing physical interfaces to

subsea processing equipment such as separators, sand management systems, pumps, metering

equipment etc.

In addition, maintenance of Part 1 can also be triggered by changes in the other corresponding

parts or by activity on upcoming new work items as e.g. the template and manifolds, system

engingeering, HIPPs and other initiatives.

6. Plans for future meetings

None. However, as suggested at the joint API/SC17 and ISO... WG6 meeting at the API

Summer Conference 2006, a task group should be initiated to discuss the issues mentioned

above and start preparations for developing a new revision. So far no interest has been noted

to date. Suggest this request be brought up again at the joint API/SC17 and ISO... WG6

meeting at the API Summer Conference 2008.

7. Resource needs (money and/or people)

Population of TG1 is necessary to start soon for planned revision work. Also, identification of

a new Project Leader for API 17A would facilitate coordination.

Per Ragnar Dahl, StatoilHydro

June 2008

Attachment G

SC 17

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUBSEA PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

STATUS OF

API 17J,B,K, L1, L2 AND ISO 13628 -2,11,10,16,17 FLEXIBLE PIPE STANDARDS

JOINT API-ISO FLEXIBLE PIPE TASK GROUP

JUNE 2008

8, 204

Prepared by: Krassy Doynov

Flexible Pipe Task Group Chair Ph.D., Subsea / Riser Systems ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company 3319 Mercer Street, URC-GW3-770A, Houston, TX 77027-6019 Tel.: 713-431-7990; FAX: 713-431-7272 E-mail: [email protected]

API 17 B,J,K,L1,L2 & ISO 13628-11,2,10,16,17 FLEXIBLE PIPE STANDARDS 2008 SUMMER STATUS REPORT. CALGARY, CANADA.

-1-

1. INTRODUCTION

The joint API-ISO Flexible Pipe Task Group (FPTG) consists of Subject Matter Experts

(SME) representing the flexible pipe community worldwide, whose tasks are to address

all technical comments arising from revisions and updates of the flexible pipe standards:

ISO 13628-11: Flexible pipe systems for subsea and marine applications, and

API RP 17B, Recommended practice for flexible pipe

ISO 13628-2: Unbonded flexible pipe systems for subsea and marine applications, and

API 17J, Specification for Unbonded Flexible Pipe

ISO 13628-10: Bonded flexible pipe, and

API 17K, Specification for Bonded Flexible Pipe

New ISO 13628-16:

API 17L1, Specification for flexible pipe ancillary equipment

New ISO 13628-17:

API 17L2, Recommended practice for flexible pipe ancillary equipment

by maintaining the technical content identical. This report describes the status of the

ongoing flexible pipe standardization work, including the status on the Flexible Pipe

Technology JIP, whose purpose is the next revision of the ISO 13628-2/-11 and API 17

J/B standards, intended for 2009.

2. CURRENT STATUS

The ISO 13628-10 was published on October-1, 2005; the identical API 17K was

published on November-1, 2005.

The ISO 13628-2 was published on July-12, 2006, while the ISO 13628-11 was

published on September-19, 2007.

In March 2008, API initiated the back adoption of -2&-11 to 17J&B – a process that

follows ANSI rules and procedure and paperwork. Completion of ANSI paperwork is

expected by June, 2008. API is expected to release the 17J&B standards by the end of

June, 2008.

The positive ISO vote of NWI-391 and NWI-392 for Ancillary Equipment Spec (L1/-16)

and RP (L2/-17), that came on 11/29/2007, categorized both proposals as DIS

documents. Since the actual vote distribution was WD:CD:DIS=1:2:3, the interpretation

of the Chair and Secretary of ISO/TC67/SC4 (Mike Payne and Ed Baniak) was that the


-2-

voting results do not demonstrate consensus that the documents are ready for DIS

stage. This practically resulted in rolling back the status of L1 and L2 proposals from

DIS to CD stage. (For information: DIS+FDIS stage take approximately 20 months,

while the CD stage adds additional 7-to-13 months.)

The CD stage was kicked-off in March. The API 17L Work Group includes SMEs from

the US, Norway, Brazil, Netherlands, UK, Canada and Italy. The 7 country review

resulted in a total of 11 comments for both documents (all of DIS nature) – currently

being resolved. The results from the CD-stage country review and the fact that all

comments came from one country, practically modify the NWI positive vote distribution

from WD:CD:DIS=1:2:3 to WD:CD:DIS=0:1:6. This indicates postfactum, that the CD

stage (with its 7-to-13 months delay) was indeed unnecessary.

With Alf Reidar’s assistance and OGP funding, the ISO formatting of both (L1/-16) &

(L2/-17) documents was completed on May-9, 2008.

API has formally declined KD’s request for supporting the API 17L Work Group by

establishing an Internet Forum on its website, or alternatively by renting Internet Forum

already established by MCS. ISO/TC67/SC4/WG6 has not responded yet to KD’s

request. As presented by KD in 2007 in San Francisco, the Internet Forum support was

sought to enable more efficient organization of FPTG activities that could shorten: the

ISO standardization process with ~ 1 year, and the time of the FPTG SMEs need to

negotiate with their own management, by introducing parallel communication and

cutting travel of SMEs spread out on 4 continents.

The Flexible Pipe Technology JIP, whose purpose is the next revision of the ISO 13628-

2/-11 and API 17 J/B standards within the 2009/2010 timeframe is still ongoing. It has

19 participants – manufacturers, operators, service companies, country regulators and

standardization bodies – a very broad Industry representation worldwide. The JIP was

kicked off in January 2005 and is about to be completed in 2008. The JIP main task is to

work on resolving the most challenging issues associate mostly with deepwater

applications, which cannot be resolved by simple e-mail correspondence. The final

deliverables of the FPT JIP is draft proposals for the next revision of the API and ISO

standards mentioned above.

3. MEMBERSHIP

The list of the subject matter experts volunteering their time to support the Flexible Pipe

Task Group (FPTG) activities has been provided in previous reports.


-3-

The list of API 17L Work Group SMEs is shown in the table below:

List of API 17L WG Subject Matter Experts

No. Name Country / Company E-mail address

1. Krassimir Doynov USA / ExxonMobil [email protected]

2. Kristin Nedrelid Norway / StatoilHydro [email protected]

3. Carlos Lemos Brazil / PetroBras [email protected]

4. Joe Hoffman Netherlands / Shell [email protected]

5. Giorgio Pastore Italy / Eni [email protected]

6. Chris Stratton Canada / Petro-Canada [email protected]

7. John Peters UK / Tuvnel [email protected]

TABLE 1 LIST OF API 17L WORK GROUP MEMBERS

4. UPDATED TARGET DATES FOR DELIVERABLES

The current target dates are:

a) Back adoption of ISO 13628-2 and ISO 13628-11 to API 17J and API 17B –

Summer 2008

b) DIS stage API 17L1 / ISO 13628-16 and L2 /-17 – 2008

c) Preparing Flexible Pipe Technology proposals for the next revision of ISO 13628-2/-

11 and API 17J/B – 2008

5. REQUESTED NEW WORK ITEMS

None.

6. PLANS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

None at this time.

7. RESOURCE NEEDS

Need ISO/TC67/SC4/WG6 answer, on earlier request for establishing an ISO-based

Internet Forum for facilitating Ancillary Equipment standardization activities, or funding

14,400 Euro (MCS CTR attached) for renting a Internet Forum on MCS website for 1-

year.

The justification of this request that includes timesaving metrics was presented by KD

and documented in the FPTG 2007 Summer Meeting Status Report in San Francisco.

-1- 27-Jun-07

Attachment H

API SC 17


API 17C

RECOMMENDED PRACTION ON TFL

(THROUGH FLOWLINE) SYSTEMS

TASK GROUP STATUS

JUNE 16, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-2

2. PREVIOUS REPORTED STATUS.................................................................................. 2-2

3. MEMBERSHIP .................................................................................................................. 3-2

4. UPDATED TARGET DATES FOR DELIVERABLES ................................................. 4-2

5. MAJOR ISSUES ................................................................................................................. 5-2

6. ANTICIPATED NEW WORK ITEMS ........................................................................... 6-2

7. PLANS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ............................................................................... 7-2

8. RESOURCE NEEDS ......................................................................................................... 8-2

-2- 27-Jun-07

1. INTRODUCTION

The API 17C Task Group has been responsible for the development of the

Recommended Practice on TFL Systems. The group is currently in the document

maintenance mode and there are no activities taking place at this time.

2. PREVIOUS REPORTED STATUS

The standard was reaffirmed in 2005 by SC17 ballot.

3. MEMBERSHIP

Comments:

TABLE 3-1: API 17C TASK GROUP MEMBERS

Name Company E-mail

Harold Reeves BP [email protected]

Brian Skeels FMC [email protected]

Rob Thurman Halliburton [email protected]

James Cordner BHP [email protected]


N/A

5. MAJOR ISSUES

No comments or suggestions for changes, improvements, or updating have been

received by the Project Leader. The project leader has contacted the members of the

Task Group and none of these has received any comments for changes or suggestions

for improvement from those currently using the document.

6. ANTICIPATED NEW WORK ITEMS

None.


None.

8. RESOURCE NEEDS

N/A at this point.

mailto:[email protected]


Attachment I

API SC 17


API 17D/ISO 13628-4 Subsea Wellheads and Christmas Trees

JOINT TASK GROUP STATUS

01 JUNE 2008

SPECIFICATION API 17D/ISO 13628-4

SUBSEA WELLHEADS AND TREES

STATUS REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

The API 17D task group’s scope was to develop a second edition of the specification, combining ISO 13628-4 and API 17D into a second edition of 13628-4. Once that ISO document is fully balloted & accepted, it is planned that it will be adopted by API as the second edition of 17-D. Items considered in the new edition of the specification include:

Revised information on gaskets and flanges

Addressed GLL and HXTs

Revised mudline equipment definitions

Updated pressure testing and acceptance criteria

Added annexes on flange bolting, material compatibility testing, lifting devices, and connector qualification testing (omitted from first DIS)

Pressure ranges (limit to 15k equipment)

Updated PSL, material class and temperature class

Clarified wellhead annular monitoring requirements

2. STATUS

The task group has been working steadily to review the 120+ pages of comments received in March, 2007. Nine meetings have been held since receiving the comments and approximately half have been reviewed. The last working session was on 13 May 2008. The task group will next convene in June at the API Standards Conference to continue the review. Annex L (Performance verification (qualification) of wellhead connectors – Normative) has been added back to the DIS. In addition, a request has been made to add some text to address the design and classification of submudline casing hangers which are sometimes used in subsea drilling/wellhead drilling programs. The task group has been directed to consider the treatment of differential pressure in the design process for the equipment that is in the scope of the specification. This is to serve as a template for treatment for the entire SC17/13628 family of specifications. A proposal has been made for funding and a response is pending. The task group is also following the ECS task group on the changes to the ASME Section VIII, Division 2 pressure vessel code and what effects it may have on the current document. Given the number and breadth of comments, the task group recommends that the document be recirculated as a DIS once the task group’s responses are incorporated.



STATUS REPORT

Completion of the review is anticipated by the end of Q3 2008. 3. MEMBERSHIP

The current membership is listed below. As always, the task group leadership is in the process of updating the roster.

API 17D/ISO 13628-4 TASK GROUP MEMBERS (May 2008)

Name Company E-Mail Address

Ross Frazer ATP Oil & Gas [email protected]

Brian Skeels FMC Technologies [email protected]

Tom Ames BP [email protected]

Don Wells ConocoPhillips [email protected]

Gary Hurta Dril-Quip [email protected]

Bill Parks DTC International [email protected]

Eric Wehner Cameron [email protected]

Stephen Fischer Vetco Gray [email protected]

Les McGeHee Dril-Quip [email protected]

Lionel M. Fontenette ExxonMobil [email protected]

Russell Hoshman MMS [email protected]

Mike Byrd BP [email protected]

Scott C. Stjernstrom Chevron [email protected]

Terry Cook Shell [email protected]

Glen Cuiper VetcoGray [email protected]

Alternates

David Morgan Cameron [email protected]

Mike Conner MMS [email protected]

Bobby Voss Vetco Gray [email protected]

4. TARGET DATES FOR DELIVERABLES

As mentioned earlier, the task group leadership is targeting end of Q3 2008 for

completing review of the comments.

5. MAJOR ISSUES

None known.








STATUS REPORT


The task group is still awaiting the results of balloting on whether or not compact

flanges are to be incorporated into the specification.


Regular meetings will be held by a focused group of the task-force members to continue comment review. The next will be at the API Standards Conference in Calgary this month.

8. RESOURCE NEEDS

Funding request for the differential pressure issue is pending.

API C2 / SC 17


API 17E SPECIFICATION for SUBSEA UMBILICALS

REVISION TASK GROUP STATUS

JUNE 25, 2008

kurylac

Text Box

Attachment J

API 17E/ISO 13628-5 SUBSEA UMBILICALS WINTER STATUS REPORT

-1- June 25, 2008

1. INTRODUCTION

On June 18, 2003 the NWI was formally sanctioned by SC17 for the API task group to work on a revision to the recently passed joint API/ISO document. The API 17E task group would begin the revision process by correcting or supplementing areas of the document which were deemed weak or incorrect.

In June 2004 a JIP was formed by DNV. The JIP began work on selected items and worked in parallel to the API TG.

In October/November 2004, a NWI was formally submitted by Olav Inderberg to the ISO Committee.

2. STATUS

The ballot to approve ISO DIS 13628-5, Petroleum and natural gas industries - Design and operation of subsea production systems - Part 5: Subsea umbilicals was voted on by the API voting members on or before December 7, 2007. Numerous comments have been received and will be dispositioned by the API TG. The ISO voting was closed on January 16, 2008. Numerous comments have been forwarded to the API TG and have been merged with the comments from the API vote. The API Task Group will be dispositioning the comments during the 3rd Quarter.

3. MEMBERSHIP

Task Group

The working task group is made up of the following personnel:

TABLE 1-1: API 17P TASK GROUP MEMBERS Name Company e-mail John McManus RathGibson [email protected] Katrina Paton Clausing Shell International Exploration & [email protected] Peter Worman Oceaneering [email protected] Teguh Inarsoyo BP [email protected] Dave Madden DUCO Inc. [email protected]


-2- June 25, 2008

Reader/Comment Group

The reader/comment group is made up of the following personnel:

1. Mark Stevenson Chevron 2. Jason Ellis Chevron 3. Lionel Fontenette ExxonMobil 4. Paul Donavan ExxonMobil 5. David Micheletti ExxonMobil 6. John Respess Marathon Oil 7. Lisbeth Holst Norsk Hydro 8. Sigmund Lunde Norsk Hydro 9. Godfried Dekeyser Pioneer Energy 10. Paul Shaw Alpha Petroleum 11. Jeremy Woulds Helix Energy 12. Jim Macklin Helix Energy 13. Stian Karlsen Nexans Norway 14. Lars Mehus Aker Kvaerner Subsea 15. Dancyl Washington Aker Kvaerner Subsea 16. Leo Caffery Aker Kvaerner Subsea 17. Andre Chartier Oceaneering Multiflex 18. Pete Worman Oceaneering Multiflex 19. Tim Wooters Parker Cabett Subsea 20. John Brown DUCO Ltd. 21. Peter Fellows DUCO Ltd. 22. Alan Dobson DUCO Ltd. 23. John Tokaruk Sandvik Steel 24. Leandro Finzetto Sandvik Steel 25. Dave O’Donnell RathGibson 26. Tony Graviano RathGibson 27. Kranthi Pallegar RathGibson 28. Ken Bertram Webco 29. Rod Brown Intec Engineering 30. Jim Morrison Pegasus International 31. Ryan Romero Pegasus International 32. Steve Mansfield J P Kenny 33. Vincent Ledoux Technip 34. Jean François Saint Marcoux Paragon Engineering 35. Darrel Evans Stolt Offshore 36. Norb Gorman Oceaneering International 37. Sandy Fraser Subsea 7 38. Knut Ivar Ekeberg ultradeep


-3- June 25, 2008


Table 4-1 shows the new proposed milestone targets:

TABLE 4-1: MILESTONE TARGET DATES Milestone Targets Proposed Completion Date

End of Clarification Response January / February 2008

Disposition Comments September 2008

Publication of ISO FDIS January 2009

End of Clarification Response June / July 2009

Publication of API/ISO Revised Standard September 2009

5. MAJOR ISSUES

None at this time

6. ANTICAPTED NEW WORK ITEMS

Following publication as FDIS, a NWI will be prepared to begin the next revision process.


The TG will meet as required to reconcile comments to DIS.

8. RESOURCE NEEDS

None at this time

ATTACHMENT K

-1-

API SC 17


API 17G Subsea Completion Risers

TASK GROUP STATUS

23 JUNE 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. STATUS ................................................................................................................................. 1

2. MEMBERSHIP ..................................................................................................................... 2

3. DELIVERABLES .................................................................................................................. 3

4. NEW WORK ......................................................................................................................... 3

1. STATUS

1. A new work item request has been submitted for ISO 13628-7, revision 3 to be carried out in six

parts. Four will be lead by the API 17G task group, one by the ISO task group, and one jointly

worked on. This effort is independent from the work item preparing a supplement that

corrects published errors in the current revision (version 2) of 13628-7.

ATTACHMENT K

-2-

2. As a part of the revision 3 effort, a focus team (within the API task group) is preparing a draft of

an Annex J which addresses testing protocols and testable barriers from an operations point of

view. The current format and scope are similar to what is found in NORSOK D-010 and D-002.

3. Three task group meetings have been held in support of the new work, and more a planned for

every other month.

4. As a part of the revision 3 effort, a focus team (within the ISO task group) is preparing a draft of

an Annex to address IWOCS either at the systems level or the completion/workover riser

configuration.

2. MEMBERSHIP

Tables 1 and 2 list the current volunteer roster for the ISO and API task groups:

TABLE 1: ISO 13628-7 TASK GROUP MEMBERS


Tony Muff (Norway) (ISO Chair) FMC Technologies [email protected]

Finn Kirkemo StatoilHydro [email protected]

Tore Geir Wernø StatoilHydro [email protected]

Jan Fredrik Carlsen FMC Technologies [email protected]

Stein Ramberg FMC Technologies [email protected]

TABLE 2: API 17G TASK GROUP MEMBERS


Brian Skeels (API 17G Chair) FMC Technologies [email protected]

Tom Ames BP [email protected]

Ginny Stover BP [email protected]

Mike Byrd BP [email protected]

Sterling Lewis ExxonMobil [email protected]

David Lacaze Shell [email protected]

Mike Hess Shell [email protected]


Perry Courville Halliburton [email protected]

Mike Bailey Halliburton [email protected]

Andy Henderson Oceaneering [email protected]

Chad Blanchard Oceaneering [email protected]

Gavin Duncan Expro Group [email protected]

Virgilio Garcia Soule Expro Group [email protected]

David Law Superior Energy Solutions [email protected]

Colin Johnston Helix Energy Systems [email protected]

Russell Hoshman MMS [email protected]





















ATTACHMENT K

-3-

Perry Courville, Michael Bailey of Halliburton, Chad Blanchard, Andy Henderson of Oceaneering, Mike

Byrd of BP, Gavin Duncan and Virgilio Garcia Soule of Expro, and David Law of Superior Energy

Services have joined the API 17G task group since the beginning of the year. Ginny Stover remains on

extended leave.

3. DELIVERABLES

The new work item for revision 3 has been submitted to ISO and API for their approval. In the

meantime, both API and ISO task groups have started work on various aspects of the new work

items.

C:\Documents and Settings\skeelsb\My Documents\Outlook\API\API 17G\CWOR - New work item proposal.doc

4. NEW WORK

o API 17G task group has met three times (February, April and June) to organize, agree and start

work on tasks.

o The six subtasks within the new revision 3 work item include:

1. Move the IWOCS clause (section) in the document to an Annex and expand scope to be

the master document reference for subsequent well intervention documents with IWOCS

variations. – Lead: Tony Muff (ISO)

2. Add equipment test frequency and well control strategy clause (section) (or Annex),

similar to NORSOK D-010 and D-002 as it applies to completion and workover riser

equipment. – Lead: Mike Bailey, Mike Hess

3. Clarify text and requirements to highlight tubing hanger running string and horizontal tree

landing string as similar intervention devices. – Lead: Tom Ames

4. Create a standard set of nomenclature of equipment that can be used across completion

workover riser configurations, and later used by subsequent welling intervention documents.

– Lead: Bill Parks

5. Subsea Test Tree Manufacture Review: (14A or not…) – Lead: Virgilio Soule

6. Clarify entire text (i.e. clarify "shoulds" and "shalls") of 13628-7 to bring the document up

from "recommended practice" status to "specification" status. – Colin Johnston to look at and

set up project plan

o API task group voted to table Light Well Intervention and Coiled Tubing documents for now and

focus on upgrading 17G so that it can support these subsequent documents later. The task group

also voted to give these documents a 17LWI and 17CT designation rather than 17G1, or 17G2

designation.

Attachment L

ISO/TC67/SC4/WG6 Subsea production systems

ISO 13628-13 Remotely Operated Tools and Interfaces on Subsea Production

Systems

Task Group status report – June 2008

1. Membership of task group

Part 13 project leader: EErich Luzi, StatoilHydro, Norway

co-operation with API work group headed by Charles White

Task group members, ISO workgroup;

Name Organisation Contact details Alain Cretenet Total [email protected] Erich Luzi StatoilHydro [email protected] Didier Renard Technip [email protected] Finn Haugen FMC [email protected] Kjersti Kanne Vetco [email protected] Timothy Marsh Shell [email protected] Alf Kristian Aadland Oceaneering [email protected] Tom Gunnar Omberg Shell [email protected]

2. Status of work item

4 Workgroup meetings have been held in the period june 2007 to 2008.

The work progress has been delayed due to heavy workload on all of the workgroup members,

and organisational changes within several of the group members organisation.

3. Updated target dates for deliverables

CD planned ready for review late November 2007

4. Major issues

Difficult to get priority for the work due to high workloads amongst work group members. No

contribution or input from the API workgroup.

5. Anticipated new work /new work items

The main focus for the new standard will be to implement experiences with existing standard

and introduce new requirements and additions as found appropriate.

A close coordination with the revision of 13628-1 is foreseen.

6. Plans for future meetings

The workgroup plan to involve other contributors for the next work meeting for review of the

current work document. Next meeting is planned autumn 2008.

In addition co-ordination meetings with API work group is planned for in connection with the

API summer conference.

7. Resource needs (money and/or people)

Assistance will be needed for the conversion of the work document into the correct ISO format,

new evaluation of resources needed will be done after summer meeting.

Erich Luzi, StatoilHydro

ISO/TC67/SC4/WG6 N.....








Attachment L

June 2008

-i- 16-Jun-04

Attachment M

ISO TC 67/SC 4/WG 6

API C2 / SC 17


API RP 2RD REVISION / ISO/WD 13628-12

DYNAMIC RISERS FOR FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS

TASK GROUP STATUS

June 25, 2008

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

2. STATUS ................................................................................................................................. 1

3. MEMBERSHIP ..................................................................................................................... 2

4. TARGET DATES FOR DELIVERABLES ........................................................................ 4

5. MAJOR ISSUES .................................................................................................................... 4

6. ANTICIPATED NEW WORK ITEMS .............................................................................. 4

7. PLANS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS .................................................................................. 4

8. RESOURCE NEEDS ............................................................................................................ 4

1 14-Jun-06

1. INTRODUCTION

The ISO 13628-12/API RP 2RD Task Group’s scope of work is to revise API RP

2RD and to submit the revision to ISO. The new document will cover top-tensioned

risers, catenary risers, hybrid risers and offloading risers. The new name of the

document will be Dynamic Risers for Floating Production Installations.

2. STATUS

A JIP by MCS and DNV to expedite the TG work was kicked off May 7, 2008.

Those who want to be involved (and lead) individual Chapter Work Groups were

confirmed.

The JIP process is:

1. Initial meetings with Chapter chairs

i. Establish chapter content

ii. Assess progress to date

iii. Determine amount of support resources required

iv. Identify key issues / conflict areas / unresolved areas

2. Execution Plan for Chapter Sub-Group

i. Scope Content

ii. Establish Chapter Schedule

3. Review / Approval by API/ISO Task Group

4. Review other codes for content

5. Produce draft of chapter(s)

6. Review & update ISO terminology

7. Prepare draft for Work Group Review

8. Convene Wider Peer-review of Chapter(s) produced by Work Group

9. Update and present to API/ISO Task Group

2 14-Jun-06

3. MEMBERSHIP

TABLE 1: API RP 2RD TASK GROUP MEMBERS

TG Member Company Email

Stanton Paul N. Technip USA, Inc [email protected]

Abayazi Petronas [email protected]

Rajiv Aggarwal KBR [email protected]

Carl Baxter RTI [email protected]

Shankar Bhat KBR [email protected]

Jim Burk BP [email protected]

Roger Burke Technip USA, Inc [email protected]

Mark Cerkovnik 2H Offshore [email protected]

Muthu Chezhian Advanced Production and Loading [email protected]

Ed Clukey BP [email protected]

Gordon Craig Grant Prideco [email protected]

Early Denison Shell [email protected]

Amit Dutta KBR [email protected]

Allen Fox Stress Engineering [email protected]

Mike Efthymiou Shell [email protected]

David Garrett Stress Engineering [email protected]

Enrique Gonzalez Petrobras [email protected]

Roland Goodman API [email protected]

Himanshu Gupta BP [email protected]

Joe Jin ExxonMobil [email protected]

Daniel Karunakaran Subsea 7 [email protected]

Kieran Kavanagh MCS [email protected]

WanJun Kim Shell [email protected]

Finn Kirkemo Statoil [email protected]

Frans Kopp Shell [email protected]

Jean-Luc Legras Acergy [email protected]

Jacky Massaglia Vallourec & Mannesmann [email protected]

Craig Masson Petrobras [email protected]

Trond Stokka Meling Statoil [email protected]

Basim Mekha Enterprise Field Services [email protected]

Kim Mork DNV [email protected]

Jeff O'Donnell Technip USA, Inc [email protected]

David Petruska BP [email protected]

Vidish Rao Shell [email protected]

Partha Sharma DNV [email protected]

John Skinner J P Kenney [email protected]

Ruxin Song Technip USA, Inc [email protected]

Joe Straub BHP Billiton [email protected]

Paul Wiet Total [email protected]

Steve Wong GE VetcoGray [email protected]

Alan Yu Technip USA, Inc [email protected]

Michelle Zhang Chevron [email protected]

cc list

Howard Cook bp [email protected]

Antoine Felix-Henry Flexi France [email protected]

Manny Gagliano MMS [email protected]

Olav Inderberg FMC [email protected]

Philippe Jeanjean bp [email protected]

Alf Reidar Johansen OGP [email protected]

Elizabeth Komiskey MMS [email protected]

Patrick O'Connor BP [email protected]

Andy Radford API [email protected]

Jim Smith Shell [email protected]

Cheryl Stark BP [email protected]

3 14-Jun-06

TABLE 2: API RP 2RD Sub Task Group Members

Section Content

1 Scope Goodman-WGL,

2 Normative references Stanton-MC

3 Definitions and nomenclature

4 Abbreviated terms

5 Symbols

6 Design loads and conditions Cerkovnik-R Kopp-R

Denison-PI WanJun-PI (coord. Shell involvement)

Garrett-WGL Mekha-M

Jin-MC Mork-MC

Kavanagh-MC (JIP lead) Petruska-PI

Karunakaran-M Zhang-PI

7 Design criteria for pipe Cerkovnik-R Kopp-R

Denison-PI WanJun-PI (coord. Shell involvement)

Garrett-WGL Legras-MC

Jin-MC Mork-MC

Kavanagh-MC (JIP lead) Zhang-PI

Karunakaran-R

8 Connectors and riser components Baxter-MC Karunakaran-R

Craig-WGL Kirkemo-MC

Denison-PI (if Jim Smith does not have time)Massaglia-MC

Fox-MC Wong

Garrett-M Zhang-R

Jin-M

9 Materials Baxter-MC Massaglia-MC

Jin-M O'Donnell-WGL

Karunakaran-R Zhang-M

Kopp-R or MC if needed

10 Fabrication and installation Denison-MC (Installation) Mekha-MC

Jin-M Straub-WGL

Karunakaran-M Zhang-PI

Kopp-R

11 Riser integrity management Chezhian-MC Karunakaran-M

Denison-PI (w/Glenn Wald) WanJun-PI

Jin-M Petruska-PI

Kavanagh-WGL Zhang-M

Annex A (Informative) Load case examples Burke-WGL Mork-MC

Garrett-MC Zhang-R

Mekha-M

Annex B (Informative) Example TTR design Yu-WGL Yu-MC

Cerkovnik-R Zhang-R

Annex C (Informative) Example SCR design Song-WGL Sharma-MC

Mekha-MC Zhang-R

Annex D (Informative) Example hybrid riser design Song-WGL Zhang-R

Legras-MC

Annex E Connector quallification Kirkemo-WGLZhang-R

Annex F Stress strain curve Kirkemo-WGLZhang-R

Annex G Capacity criteria example Kirkemo-WGLZhang-R

Annex H (Informative) Geotechnical considerations Clukey-WGL (MC for other sections)Sharma-PI Zhang-R

All Komiskey-R

WGL work group lead M minor

MC major contributor R review only

PI participate by providing information

Assignments to Work Groups, as of May 2008Joint Task of ISO TC67/SC4/WG6 and API SC2

ISO 13628-12 & API-RP-2RD-Revision: Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – Dynamic Risers for Floating Production

Installations

Work Group Members

4 14-Jun-06

4. TARGET DATES FOR DELIVERABLES

Table 3 shows the proposed milestone targets:

TABLE 3: MILESTONE TARGET DATES

Milestone Targets Proposed Completion Date

JIP Kick-off 7 May 08

Rev A [1st complete draft for review] 28 Jan 09

Final update 1 Apr 09

Publication of Standard 2009

5. MAJOR ISSUES

None at this time.


None at this time.


Next full TG meeting currently TBD.

8. RESOURCE NEEDS

None at this time.

.

Attachment N

API 17 N Comments Calgary Meeting 2008

Submitted direct to API

James Papas

Devon Energy

I firmly agree and stand behind the RP-17N guideline document. While not perfect, it is

the culmination of many man-hours of work and compromise between technical experts

from as many operating companies and service/supply companies as wished to participate.

Much deliberation led to the formulation of this document, and to my knowledge,

everyone had ample opportunities to collaborate, comment, and deliberate. In the final

run, no one should act firmly against its passage, although I expect there to be several

recommended small changes. Don Wells ConocoPhillips I accept the document As Is and recommend that it be submitted for formal ballot. Chris Chaplin Chevron Multiple constructive comments (see separate) Runar Ostebo Statoil Multiple constructive comments (see separate)

Submitted separately by e mail (or other presentation) ISO 20815 Convener(s) team response Based on an initial review of API 17N, we have the following comments: 1) First of all, let us congratulate you with a thorough and well written document 2) We appreciate the recognition of ISO 20815 which is included in section 2.1. I think this clarification related to the relation to this standard is important for the users. 3) With reference to Runar Ostebo's comments below, I have the following responses: 3.1) Ref comment 2: The slight difference in titles for the 12 processes has been thoroughly discussed during alignment meetings between the API 17N and ISO 20815 committees. We agreed that the slight differences were acceptable as ISO focuses on overall Production Assurance and API more on reliability and availability. Hence, we think that the industry can accept the subtle differences in titles here. 3.2) Ref comment 3: Here we do agree with Runar. I think we should seek to harmonise the "X'es" for Risk Categories and Life Cycle Phases as the deviation here can well cause confusion in the industry. Therefore, we do recommend that the API committee reconsider whether the "X'es" can be put in exactly the same places as in ISO 20815, unless there are strong reasons why they are put where they are. If that is the case, then this should be discussed with the ISO committee to see if this needs to be modified in future revisions of ISO 20815.

Attachment N

4) Ref section 2.6.4: Based on previous experience on using the TRL concept, the main challenge with this approach is how to TRL-score an item which has been previously qualified (and perhaps field proven), but which is subsequently modified (e.g. dimensions or materials) to accommodate e.g. increased pressure or temperature requirements. In this case, the discussion is always whether this then is e.g TRL 2 or TRL 5, or something in between. This discussion should be further elaborated upon here. Furthermore, it might be a good idea to check out what API 17Q is doing wrt qualification. It may be that the work being undertaken there could be referenced here (if the work has progressed long enough). Response to ISO comments by Atkins Boreas (API 17N Technical team) General points: Alignment, consistency and standardization between API and ISO is, in general terms, desirable but it is not always possible in practice once they are being actually used in projects. While agreeing that there are areas where we can tidy up and align, there are bound to be areas of disagreement I presume the industry (and ISO) will have further opportunities to discuss the areas of disagreement when the API 17N is formally issued as a draft RP. It is perhaps worth mentioning that API 17N has and is being used by companies right now to develop reliability strategy (not just BP) and so has benefited from practical inputs. Runar Comment 1: I presume once 17N becomes an official draft, Statoil will be given more time to consider and comment on the draft. At this stage are we not simply trying to ensure that 17N has broad industry support so that it can be accepted as a formal document? Runar Comment 2: We agreed with ISO to have different process names at a meeting in London with Knut Edmund and Henrik Kortner a couple of years ago. We preferred (and ISO agreed) to keep the names we had for the API (and different from ISO) because they were the ones with which the subsea industry was now familiar. That said, I would be reasonably comfortable with changing the API key process numbers so that they are consistent with ISO but not the titles. Runar Comment 3: The x's in Figure 4 in API 17N differ from Table 2 in ISO/FDIS for two reasons. (1) The project stages are different in the ISO from the API (This was also agreed with ISO) and the relevance of key processes is sensitive to those project stages, hence the differences. The project stages in API 17N are pretty standard for the Subsea sector with most oil companies and we did not want to standardise with ISO project stages when they were not the ones used by most of the subsea industry. (2) We simply disagree on technical grounds with some aspects of the ISO table. For example, we believe good practice dictates that verification and validation has relevance to all project stages. Comment 4: We have not referred to IEC 61164 (reliability growth) in the annex 4, but agree we could and believe we should, so I suggest we make that an action for change.

Don Well ConocoPhillips Gentlemen, API recently issued via Non-Binding Ballot its proposed document "SUBSEA PRODUCTION SYSTEM - RELIABILITY & TECHNICAL RISK MANAGEMENT - API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 17N" (via e-mail dated March 17). The fact that the document is in its 8

th draft in

evidence that a great deal of effort has been put into this document to ensure that it is readable, understandable, is compatible with ISO, and meets the needs all users including the MMS who initiated its development.

Attachment N

It describes a process that is designed to be adapted to the specific requirements of the project or process that it will be applied to, ensuring that no unneeded exercises are employed. As such, it is flexible to efficiently support not only the requirements of the large highly technical project that requires the use of new technologies, significant interface management, and large teams, but the smaller less technically challenging projects that may just be a repeat of what has been done before.

In an unusual move, API has allowed us to issue this non binding ballot to ensure that we have provided all interested parties the opportunity to respond with feedback in the form of specific comments or revisions before it is issued for formal ballot. We are not necessarily asking for a line by line commentary, but if there are valid concerns, we would appreciate enough detail to allow us both understand and respond to the comment with either an explanation or revision.

The deadline for submission has been extended to May 19th and the 17N Work Group and API would very much appreciate your facilitating this feedback. It will be that last opportunity before its formal ballot.

If you have any questions regarding the process, please do not hesitate to refer to the attached or contact Carriann Kuryla at:

Brian Skeels FMC Technologies Attached is a letter compiling my concerns over annex 4. (Attachment separate).The rest of the document is fine. However, I do caution that some inter-coordination is needed between the 17N and 17Q task groups regarding qualification template documents and the reliability/technical risk aspects. API 17N Chair/co Chair response Brian thanks for your quality input. We believe that API 17N and API 17Q are full compatible and complimentary (and we have reviewed API 17N with this as a criteria). I also think that API 17N is very advanced (normally the draft is much more general and quite honestly much less sophisticated/developed) for this stage of API 17 adoptions process. Of course your input is valid and would be part of the normal review process which we can incorporate into the development of this RP either now or as part of the review process (we were not going for perfect at this stage, more an agreement in principle that we needed this type of document). I think we need to adopt this RP and developed this further in conjunction with API and ISO (note ISO 20815 has already been adopted and is a coordinated umbrella for 17N as the subsea implementation and is in agreement with ISO 20815). Woodside Lars Petter Sollie /Chris Lawlor] W have reviewed the document. It is well organized and reads good. I have one concern only that relates to and is fully in line with one comment compiled by yourselves in the Calgary document. The comment is, quote...4) Ref section 2.6.4: Based on previous experience on using the TRL concept, the main challenge with this approach is how to TRL-score an item which has been previously qualified (and perhaps field proven), but which is subsequently modified (e.g. dimensions or materials) to accommodate e.g. increased pressure or temperature requirements. In this case, the discussion

Attachment N

is always whether this then is e.g TRL 2 or TRL 5, or something in between. This discussion should be further elaborated upon here. Furthermore, it might be a good idea to check out what API 17Q is doing wrt qualification. It may be that the work being undertaken there could be referenced here (if the work has progressed long enough). ...end quote.

When the WEL document A1305AG0003 GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY INTO SUBSEA PROJECTS - Identification and Closure of Technical Gaps was developed, we opted based on experience to use both a TRL and an Application Class to categorize.

Congratulations with the good effort. The last few percentage to get it across the line is always hard. We will consider the document for incorporation as soon it's through and released. Master Flow Our relibility engineer has put together a number of comments, which I have enclosed (attachment separate). My apologies for this being late and also if, by submitting them to you directly, I am circumventing the proper channels in API. I have not actually reviewed all of the comments myself, since this ballot is for comments only. You can decide for yourself which ones are valid revisions and which are not. Loren Kowalchuk Core Technology Engineering Manager Master Flo Valve Inc. Dave Brooks/Paul Tooms BP Presentations DOT Support/endorsing and are using API 17N Operators using or reviewing for use Petronas, Inpex, Woodside, KGK …….

Subsea Production System Reliability & Technical Risk Management API RP 17N

API 17 meeting Calgary June 08

John Allen – GE Vetco

Attachment O

Agenda

Presentation Objectives

Quick Overview of API RP 17N

Challenges

Recent Achievements

Lessons Learned

Summary and Forward Plan

Presentation Objectives

Remind the audience of the subsea reliability goals and efforts to date on API 17N

Share some of the challenges, approaches to resolve & Lessons Learned

Insight into the latest experiences in application of the Recommended Practice

Summarize the plans ahead

API RP 17N Overview

Who is responsible?

Steering Committee

John Allen - Vetco (Chairman)

Mark Siegmund - BP (Co-chair)

Don Wells – ConocoPhillips

Eric Waguespack – Chevron

James Papas – Devon

Prof. John Strutt – Boreas

(Coordinator)

Tim Dean - KMG

Charles Burton – Chevron (UNOCAL)

Jean Pierre Signoret - Total

Steve Williams – XOM

Nilo Jorge - Petrobras

David Rainford – BMT (Secretary)

Overview of API 17N……

Subcommittees

Staff from:

DNV, Cameron,

FMC, Drill Quip,

Masterflo, Stress,

IRC, Kvaerner,

Subsea 7, Technip,

Duco, SCS….

API Q1Specification for Quality

Programs for the

Petroleum, Petrochemical

and Natural Gas Industry

Alignment to Standards

API 17 series

DNV-RP A203

“Qualification

Procedures for new

technology”

DeepStar

Technology

Readiness Levels

API Q1Specification for

Quality Programs for

the Petroleum,

Petrochemical and

Natural Gas IndustryAPI 17NRecommended Practice

Subsea Production

System Reliability &

Technical Risk

Management

ISO 20815Regularity

Management and

Reliability

Technology

ISO 14224Petroleum and natural

gas industries –

Collection and

exchange of reliability

and maintainability data

for equipment

17A – thru M

Drafts: O,Q

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://projects.dnv.com/oslofjord/bilder_gif/DNV%2520logo%2520colour%2520(bitmap).bmp&imgrefurl=http://projects.dnv.com/oslofjord/top_menue_03.htm&h=572&w=366&sz=103&tbnid=y5E_-zYht3h2MM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=86&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddnv%2Blogo%26um%3D1&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1

Participation & support

DeepStar

API

ISO

MMS

Operators

Manufacturers

Engineering / Designers

Consultants

In summary: Over 300 individuals have contributed as subcommittee members, authors, facilitators, integrators, advisors, coaches or as a vocal member at one of our many workshops, meetings or forums.


Our objective: The Bathtub curve says it all! R

ate

of

occ

urr

ence

of

fail

ure

s

Life cycle

Remove Early

Life failures Minimise Random failures Increase durability

Minimise Wear out

Failures

Decreasing failure

rate with time of

operation

Increasing failure rate

with timeConstant failure rate

R = exp (- t)

An expensive

learning curve for

remote or

deepwater subsea

Installations

Useful Life

Decommission

before this period

These are the remaining through life

failures. Largely caused by unforeseen

external events or usage conditions

These failures can be minimised by

designing out and operating to prevent

all foreseeable failures

Design to achieve

this Failure Free

Operating Period

typical

Reliability Strategy Goal


Purpose of the RP

API RP 17 N provides a framework to support the application of the

key processes required to manage reliability and technical risk

Help prepare reliability plans to facilitate the implementation of a

R&M strategy

Scope of application

Operators

Contractors

Suppliers

Management thru implementators


What the RP doesn’t do

Mandate any technical risk management activity

Remember… it‟s a recommended practice

If it doesn‟t add project value, don‟t do it

Explicitly state how and when to implement activities

All projects are different

All companies have different project processes

Many different reliability and risk management techniques


Reliability Planning: Based on 12 Key Processes

6 R&M Key Processes 6 Common Key Processes

1. Definition of R&M Goals and Requirements

2. Organizing and Planning for R&M

3. Design and Manufacture for R&M

4. Reliability Assurance

5. Risk and R&M Analysis

6. R&M Qualification and Testing

R&M key process include specific R&M effort

Common key processes provide support throughout project

Key processes are good management practices and are used

a. To determine specific R&M tasks and

b. To create an integrated reliability management system

7. Verification and Validation

8. Project Risk Management

9. Performance Tracking and Data Management

10. Supply Chain Management

11. Management of Change

12. Organizational Learning


How the RP works

The RP enables user to develop their R&M plans for projects

Typical subsea project divided into phases

RP tells you the key processes in each phase necessary to

Understand the technical risk

Understand your goals and requirements

Plan to achieve them

Implement the plan

Provide assurance of technical risk management

1. Feasibility

2. Concept design

3. FEED

4. Detailed design

5. Manufacture and assembly

6. SIT / Installation / Commissioning

7. Operation


Value of API RP 17N to Project

Reliability goals to reflect operability requirements

Reliability plan created for the project to achieve goals

Reliability tasks coordinated with engineering tasks

RAD shows how selected design meets requirements

Reliability

Plan

Reliability

Goals

RAD

ITT Documents support creation of clear

and unambiguous R&M goals and

requirements for the ITT


Creating the Project Reliability Plan

ProjectReliability

Plan

Project Stage

Identify key processes

Define associated reliability

tasks

Create Programme of work

and allocate resources

API RP17N

Challenges

Challenges

Where are the interfaces? Subsea, down-hole, topsides, drilling, work-over (API 17A)

Implementation Blockers for the upstream oil & gas industry (multiple buyers buying with differing drivers)

Demonstrate economic value to the industry Benefits are difficult to claim/ measure and results aren‟t instantaneous

Universal process – all customers, all projects – large, small, complex, simple

Different independent initiatives

Common approach be agreed by industry?

Alignment to be obtained with proposed ISO Standards Participation & quality of Feedback:

Challenges and response

Where are the interfaces? Subsea, down-hole, topsides, drilling, work-over (API 17A) – Alignment to ISO14224 boundaries

Implementation Blockers for the upstream oil & gas industry (multiple buyers buying with differing drivers) – RP provides common process with varied options

Demonstrate economic value to the industry Benefits are difficult to claim/ measure and results aren‟t instantaneous ( unless they disclose a design defect) – Needs good faith and management commitment. Everyone claims success but failure, only scapegoats

Universal process – all customers, all projects – large, small, complex, simple Categorization provides multiple options

Different independent initiatives - Alignment to Operator efforts, API, ISO, OREDA, DeepStar

Common approach be agreed by industry? - Need a majority plus learnings and feedback – long road ahead.

Alignment to be obtained with proposed ISO Standards – Success!

Participation & quality of Feedback: Workshops good but reading/responding to the RP is superficial

Achievements, Learning's & Way Forward

Recent Achievements

Brief Executive Summary added to the RP

R&M Practice Guide added - refers to Annexes

Agreement by DeepStar to adopt the RP Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) process

Complete Alignment with umbrella document ISO 20815

Workshop Highlights 1. Need to Read the RP

2. Case Studies – good learning tool Group struggled with Reliability Planning

“Ok” with Risk Categorization

3. Need a “quick start” or users guide

Chevron agree to fund Technical Author

Lessons Learned

Difficult to learn a new language

Workshops are good way to judge usability

Industry capability for Reliability improving: Birth of the Subsea Reliability Engineer

More projects aligning to operator Reliability Strategies

Need Data Collection– performance benchmarks are few.

Value Analysis challenge

ISO and API can work together

Summary & Forward Plan

Alignment and Participation remains strong

Reliability processes are being applied to new projects

RP Technical Authorship should improve readability

Funding Sought for Annexes from API1. “Quick start Guide”

2. Completed Case Study

3. DeepStar and Boreas/Atkins-Offer to support completion actions (instead of API).

4. Chevron funds „authoring‟

5. Completed document to be provided to API for voting

Calling for Volunteers to provide detailed feedback API to distribute improved version for approval

Plans & opportunities….1. Roll out at API conference June 2007

2. Electronic process??

3. Real-life applications??

Summary & Forward Plan

Revise to 8th Draft by Boreas (new team) to be „1st time user friendly‟ (easier to read and comprehend)

Deepstar regulatory committee meeting March 13th 08 Present new version to MMS well received

API 17N non binding ballot for comments. Purpose, to collect more formally any comments (include and in addition to those given verbally at meeting in San Francisco)

Sent out to voting members,

ISO 20815 committee,

others participating in Aberdeen, KL and Perth forums

API 17 Chairman ballot comments

API 17N non binding ballot comments

API 17N representatives Well received need to proceed asap

Document is fine. Need additions in Annex 4 (this will be done). Needs coordination with API 17Q

We fully endorse this document to be submitted for ballot

Support this and fits well with ISO 20815

(This Document) it looks fine (even) for the independent operator

ISO 20815 representatives This is excellent revision and particularly it is well aligned with ISO

Comments on wording and numbering system

Alignment with ISO (these will be incorporated) also would like more time to do thorough review

ISO 20815 convener Congratulations on a well written document

The references to ISO 20815 is recognized and appreciated

Some comments on harmonization

In summary we have had no negative comments and some useful editorial steers. We propose we put this to ballot in its current form

Questions!

-1- 5-June-08

Attachment P

SC 17


API 17P HIPPS

TASK GROUP STATUS

JUNE 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1


3. MEMBERSHIP .................................................................................................................. 2-1


5. MAJOR ISSUES ................................................................................................................. 5-2



8. RESOURCE NEEDS ......................................................................................................... 8-2

-1- 5-June-08

1. INTRODUCTION

The API 17O task group has the scope of work to develop a recommended practice

for High Integrity Pressure Protections Systems (HIPPS). This will include all

potential HIPPS locations for a subsea production system.


The working group met as planned at the end of March to revise and update the draft.

This resulted in several sections being redrafted. Comments and feedback where

received and collated at the end of May. This draft has now been issued to the

working group with a request for comments back by end of June. On receipt of

comments, these will be incorporated and then the draft issued to API for further

review and comment.

3. MEMBERSHIP

Membership to the task group has grown with a large industry involvement.

TABLE 3-1: API 17O TASK GROUP MEMBERS - HOUSTON

Name Company E-mail

Allen Verret Murphy [email protected]

Baha Tanju Chevron [email protected]

Bill Hlavaty Williams [email protected]

Blane Thinglestad Hess [email protected]

Brian Perilloux Williams [email protected]

Brian Skeels FMC [email protected]

Bruce Davidson J P Kenny [email protected]

Christy Bohannon MMS [email protected]

Craig Lamison KBR [email protected]

Crispin Richards Shell [email protected]

Christopher Curran BP [email protected]

Tim Dean Anadarko [email protected]

Francois Delille J P Kenny [email protected]

Don Ogwude CSI [email protected]

Eivind Koren StatoilHydro [email protected]

Frank Torres Aker Kvaerner [email protected]

Gary Harrison BP [email protected]

Horst Moll Aker Kvaerner [email protected]

Teguh Inarsoyo BP [email protected]

James Waithman Nexen [email protected]

James Wilkirson Cameron [email protected]

Jay Hursh Aker Kvaerner [email protected]

Jim Chase Intec [email protected]

Jim Metzinger Technip [email protected]

Jim Riley Chevron [email protected]

John Allen GE Vetco [email protected]

John Bodine Chevron [email protected]

Kevin Keosof Chevron [email protected]



























-2- 5-June-08

Name Company E-mail

Lewis Holmes FMC [email protected]

Loc Hoang Cameron [email protected]

Manny Gagliano MMS [email protected]

Mark Marsalis Drilquip [email protected]

Mendel Nock Chevron [email protected]

Rajam Murthy Chevron [email protected]

Shyam Patel BP [email protected]

Paul Shepherd AMEC [email protected]

Peter Lovie Devon [email protected]

Raj Balene Intec [email protected]

Richard Barratt GE Vetco [email protected]

Rod Hope Stress Subsea [email protected]

Roger Bergman Chevron [email protected]

Tim Goggans FMC [email protected]

Tim Powell Devon [email protected]

William Taggart Murphy [email protected]


Failure in implementation of the purchase order for full time personnel has severely

delayed progress of completing the rough draft. Table 4-1 proposed milestone targets

will have to be discussed with the task group during the proposed January 1 Qtr

meeting:

TABLE 4-1: MILESTONE TARGET DATES


Working Draft agreed by TG July 2008

Draft approved by SC for formal ballot September 2008

Publication of RP December 2008

5. MAJOR ISSUES

No major issues.


None at this time.


No meetings are currently planned although it is envisaged that one may be needed if

comments are significant to the draft which is currently out for review.

8. RESOURCE NEEDS

None.
















-1- 25-Jan-08

Attachment Q

API C2 / SC 17


API 17P TEMPLATES AND MANIFOLDS

TASK GROUP STATUS

JUNE 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1


3. MEMBERSHIP .................................................................................................................. 3-2


5. MAJOR ISSUES ................................................................................................................. 5-3



8. RESOURCE NEEDS ......................................................................................................... 8-3

-1- 25-Jan-08

1. INTRODUCTION

The API 17P task group has the scope of work to develop a standard that would be

applicable to all types of templates and the manifolds supported by them. This would

include well spacer templates, riser support templates, manifold templates and

multiwell/manifold temples; i.e. drilling and production templates, as well as pipeline

end terminations and pipeline end manifolds. Some of the main topics to be covered

by the standard are:

Design and performance requirements for all components

Definition of interface requirements

Fabrication guidance

Installation guidance

Operations and maintenance guidance

Abandonment considerations


INTEC Engineering has setup a FTP web site to post the skeleton of the draft to allow

access by more than the local members of the task group

(ftp:\\API:[email protected]). The draft document and other supporting

documents have been posted to the site. It was decided that the task group would

revert to communication by e-mail.

A Purchase Order was executed January 15, 2007 to Doris Inc to provide clerical

support for the development of the rough draft. A cleanup of the rough draft has been

completed and distributed to the task group. Roughly 30% of the budget has been

expended to date.

A quarterly workshop was scheduled on 9th

May 2007 at Chevron in Houston,

however the meeting was cancelled due to lack of availability of participants. A

workshop was held on 13th

June 2007 at Chevron in Houston. It was agreed to meet

more frequently. The submitted table of contents was accepted by the task group on

13 October 2007, and a draft of the body text was distributed for comment and further

editing. All comments received have been incorporated, and the document has been

send to the task group for final comments.

The next step is to uplift the working draft to committee draft by:

Incorporate figures

-2- 25-Jan-08

Fill out thin sections

Update material section to match latest annex L

Review gaps/overlaps with 17D, 17H and subsea connectors

John McMannis has been assigned as the sponsor/champion within the SC 17

management.

3. MEMBERSHIP

Membership to the task group has grown with several new members participating.

Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3 show the changes in the current volunteer

membership for the API 17P RP:

TABLE 3-1: API 17P TASK GROUP MEMBERS - HOUSTON

Name Company E-mail


Charles White DORIS [email protected]

Victor Vargas FMC [email protected]

Jeff Whipple INTEC Engineering [email protected]

Jonathan Dubois ExxonMobil [email protected]

Kim Dyson INTEC Engineering [email protected]

Marc Hyndman Chevron Texaco [email protected]

Matthew Herrold BP [email protected]

Robert McInnes INTEC Engineering [email protected]

Brian Rose Cameron [email protected]

TABLE 3-2: API 17P TASK GROUP MEMBERS - OVERSEAS

Name Company E-mail

Børge Brubæk Statoil [email protected]

Jørgen Holst Norsk Hydro jorgen.holst@hydro@com

TABLE 3-3: RESERVE API 17P TASK GROUP MEMBERS

Name Company E-mail

Bhailal Parmar Chevron [email protected]

Hevle, Eric J. (ejhe) Chevron [email protected]

John Hellums Cameron [email protected]

Ken Stefano Chevron [email protected]

Mario Lugo Exxonmobil [email protected]

Paul Mason Consultant [email protected]

Yong Bai Grenland Group [email protected]

Reserve members are not able to participate directly due to combination of project

workload and temporary relocation to support projects, but are interested in the

success of the task group.






mailto:kim.dyson@intec






mailto:jeffrey.whipple@intecengineering








-3- 25-Jan-08


Failure in implementation of the purchase order for full time personnel has severely

delayed progress of completing the rough draft. Table 4-1 proposed milestone targets

will have to be discussed with the task group during the proposed January 1 Qtr

meeting:



Working Draft agreed by TG to proceed to

Subcommittee (SC) (ISO Stage 20.99)

September 2008

Draft approved by SC for formal ballot (ISO

Stage 30.99)

March 2009

Publication of Standard (ISO Stage 60.60) December 2009

5. MAJOR ISSUES

No major technical issues at this time.


None at this time.


Task Group half-day meeting scheduled quarterly.

8. RESOURCE NEEDS

None at this time

ATTACHMENT R

-1- June 20, 2008

SC 17


API 17Q RECOMMENDED PRACTICE

for

SUBSEA EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION

JUNE 2008

1. INTRODUCTION

The API 17Q Task Group (TG) kicked-off February 8, 2008 to develop a recommend

practice that outlines a consistent methodology and documentation process for the

qualification of subsea equipment.

2. STATUS

Due to the large task of developing qualification guidelines for subsea equipment, eight

(8) separate component task groups have been developed:

Valves and actuators

Trees and chokes

Manifold assembly and connectors

Hydraulic - subsea controls

Electrical - subsea controls

Coatings and insulation

Completion equipment

Wellhead equipment.

Since April 2008, eleven (11) sub committee component grouping meetings have been

held to gain alignment on respective test requirements. In addition to sub committee

meetings, two (2) 17Q leadership committee meetings have been held: March 10, 2008

(at BP) and May 15, 2008 (at Oil States).

To date, committee and participant alignments have been reached regarding overall 17Q

methodology (failure mode analysis and product qualification sheets - datasheets),

specific groupings and respective components, FMA template form and the RP's outline.

Due to high interest within industry and strong support provided by the 17Q TG, the TG

anticipates submitting the draft RP 1Q 2009 to API for further review and comment.

ATTACHMENT R

-2- June 20, 2008

Task Group

The working task group is made up of the following personnel:

TABLE 1-1: API 17P TASK GROUP MEMBERS

Name Company e-mail

Allen, John VetcoGray [email protected]

Baca, Jose ExxonMobil [email protected]

Balk, Ivar VetcoGray [email protected]

Byrd, Mike BP [email protected]

Byrne, Steve ExxonMobil [email protected]

Chambers, David ExxonMobil [email protected]

Chaplin, Chris Chevron [email protected]

Cuiper, Glen Aker Kvaerner [email protected]

Galle, Gary VetcoGray [email protected]

Gwyn, David Cameron [email protected]

Hewlett, Clyde Oceaneering [email protected]

Hill, Rick* Trendsetter [email protected]

Jeter, Brad* Trendsetter [email protected]

Kattner, Max Oceaneering [email protected]

Kopparthi, Venu Aker Kvaerner [email protected]

Lewis, Sterling ExxonMobil [email protected]

Mayo, Claudia** Trendsetter [email protected]

McCoy, Bernie FMC [email protected]

Povloski, Bo Oil States [email protected]

Russel, Casey Aker Kvaerner [email protected]

Spritzer, Jared Shell [email protected]

Tanju, Baha Chevron [email protected]

Taylor, Mike FMC [email protected]

Note: *17Q Coordinator

** 17Q Administrative Assistant

Reader/Comment Group

The reader/comment group is made up of the following personnel:

1. Benson, Dan Oceaneering

2. Bodine, John Chevron

3. Byrne, Stephen ExxonMobil

4. Chaplin, Chris Chevron

5. Dean, Tim Anadarko

6. Ferguson, Ken Chevron

7. Fontenette, Lionel ExxonMobil

8. Freeman, Austin Halliburton

9. Guinn, Mitch ExxonMobil

10. Guo, Weili ExxonMobil

11. Haeberle, Sue FMC

12. Kowalchuk, Loren Masterflo

13. LaCaze, Dave Shell















ATTACHMENT R

-3- June 20, 2008

14. Lugo, Mario ExxonMobil

15. McCoy, Bernie FMC

16. McManus, John Rath Gibson

17. Pappas, James DVN

18. Paulo, Paulo Aker Kvaerner

19. Powell, Tim DVN

20. Russell, Casey Aker Kvaerner

21. Skeels, Brian FMC

22. Smith, Skip Oceaneering

23. Voss, Bobby VetcoGray

Note, other original equipment manufactures not listed above are actively providing

input to sub committee TGs.


Table 4-1 shows the proposed milestone targets:



Status meeting / discuss revised RP September 5, 2008

Status meeting / discuss finalized RP November 14, 2008

Submit RP 17Q to API for ballot December 2008

Publication of API RP 17Q 1Q 2009

4. MAJOR ISSUES

Minor - Ongoing dialogue among Task Group on PQS input cells for capturing required

information.

5. ANTICAPTED NEW WORK ITEMS

None at this time.


Respective component group leadership teams are arranging numerous meetings

between Operator and Contractor SMEs to gain alignment on respective component PQS

qualification requirements.

September 5, 2008 Task Group committee meeting (location TBD).

7. RESOURCE NEEDS

None at this time

SC17 Comments to HPHT Presentation

June 24, 2008

Attachment S

Feed back

Plus

Design method uses industry accepted

practices

No apparent barriers to use external

pressures in the design

Having a recognized method to address

new project needs for HPHT without having

new product standards is good

Puts a mechanism in place to show

regulatory authorities that there is a

methodology for design when existing

code(s) does not apply

Minus


June 24, 2008

Appears that the three groups (materials,

design, and testing) are not working in a

coordinated manner.

Not clear how broadly the design process is

likely to be applied – 15K and below?

Design is fit for purpose and is not to any set

standard or prescribed safety factor

Example show material complies with NACE,

yet unclear how this will work for HPHT sour

service.

Can product line support extra cost for

metallurgist and failure analysis work for each

specific application

Can resources be provided to make this work in

a cost effective manner

Not addressing seal technology.

Time has been included as an added factor.

This is a new requirement in evaluating the

ultimate service life of subsea equipment.


June 24, 2008

Question

How does this relate to 17Q?

Forward Strategy

They need an ad hoc steering committee to

watch over/guide all three groups to ensure all

three work hand and hand together

(materials/FEA/Testing)

Need to reemphasize this only applies to

greater than 15K service and is not intended to

require that a reanalysis of equipment below

15K service be performed

Method for evaluating service life will need to

be defined by the users and not be prescribed

by the HPHT workgroup. Service life

requirements shall be part of the product

design basis.

Composite work scope should be expanded

beyond pressure vessels, to include seals,

wearing components, etc.


June 24, 2008

Maintain a relationship with the MMS that

results in no surprises

API SC 17 & ISO/TC67/SC4/WG6

Subsea Roundtable

RP 17Q - Subsea Equipment Qualification

Status Update

Chris Horan

ExxonMobil Development Company

June 24, 2008

Attachment T

RP 17Q Summary

Objective

• Develop a recommend practice that outlines a consistent methodology and documentation process for the qualification of subsea equipment

Issue Statement

• Basis for “qualified” or “field proven” needs to be clearly documented

• Industry alignment needed on acceptable qualification testing standards and methods

• Better mechanism required to document and communicate functional requirements and potential failure mechanisms between operators/vendors and their growing supply chain

Challenges

• Minor – Ongoing dialogue among task group on datasheet (PQS) required information

Overview of Methodology

• Develop a systematic, structured approach to subsea

equipment qualification:

– Component level breakdown consistent with RP 17A categories

– Develop generic FMA template for determining qualification requirements

• FMA approach - based on simplified DNV-RP-A203 practices

• Highlight component specific failure mechanisms, critical design features

– Develop generic datasheet (product qualification sheet – PQS) referenced directly to existing vendor part number or categorization systems

• Documents – Operator functional references and Vendor / OEM drawings, BOM

– Environmental and operating service conditions

– Qualification testing and applicable reports, standards and supporting information

– Design validation process

– Applicable ROV tooling / installation interfaces

Component Groupings

• Valves and Actuators (9)

• Trees and Chokes (3)

• Manifold Assembly and

Connectors (10)

• Hydraulic - Subsea Controls (25)

• Electrical – Subsea Controls (26)

• Coatings / Insulation (3)

• Completion Equipment (5)

• Wellheads (8)

• 8 Identified component groupings

• ~90 Individual components identified based on functionality and classes

of equipment

Category (# of product qualification sheets - PQS)

RP 17Q Task Group Organization

RP 17Q Chair

Chris Horan

(ExxonMobil)

Coordinators

Rick Hill

Brad Jeter

Admin. Asst.

Claudia Mayo

Wellhead

Equipment

Berne McCoy (FMC)

Sterling Lewis (EM)

Hydraulic Subsea

Controls

Glen Cuipers (AK)

Casey Russel (AK)

Steve Byrne (EM)

Completion

Equipment

Mike Taylor (FMC)

Skip Smith (OC)

Steve Byrne (EM)

Coatings &

Insulation

Jose D. Baca (EM)

Herman Buscher

(ST)

Electrical Subsea

Controls

David Gwyn (CAM)

Steve Byrne (EM)

Trees & Chokes

Mike Byrd (BP)

Gary Galle (GE)

Valves &

Actuators

David Gwyn (CAM)

Chris Chaplin (CVX)

Manifold Assembly

& Connectors

Mike Byrd (BP)

Bo Povloski (OSI)

Other Key Participants and Readers

Operators, Vendors and OEMs

5

Highlights

• High Interest and Support Among Industry

– Three (3) Committee meetings held – February 8, 2008 (kickoff),

March 10th and May 15th

– Eleven (11) Component group meetings held since April

• Committee and Participant Alignment regarding:

– Methodology – FMA, PQS process

– Categories and specific components

– FMA template form

– RP outline and overall task group schedule

• 90% (81 of 90) of component PQS’ drafted

• API agreed to publish RP 17Q as traditional format and as

electronically configurable datasheet templates (PQS)

FMA Template

• FMA linked to PQS via index number or other Vendor/Operator agreeable

method

• Guidance and definition for each FMA heading to be provided in the RP

• FMA suggested Keywords to be available via meta tags or a drop box

menu

• Example FMA excerpt to be provided in RP

FMA #: PQS #: Date:

Rev. #:

ID # Item Functional Requirement Failure Mode Failure Mechanism Keyword Qualification Method Acceptance Criteria

Failure Mode Assessment

OEM BOM #:

Component/Assembly:

Vendor:

OEM:

Component Description:

Vendor Assembly DRWG #:

OEM Assembly DRWG #:

Vendor BOM #:

Comments:

PQS Template - Overview

ROV Tooling / Installation Aids

Service Conditions / Operating Parameters

Qualification Testing Requirements

Quality Requirements

Component Identification Information

Preferred Configurations / Characteristics

PQS Template - Identification Information

Component/Assembly: Component Description:

Operator Governing

Specification:

Rev. #: Date:

Vendor: Vendor Component Identifier:

OEM:

Weight :

PQS #:

Dimensions (HxWxL) : FMA #:

Vendor BOM #:

OEM BOM #: OEM Assembly DRWG #:

Vendor Assembly DRWG #:

• Component / assembly type & description

• Vendor / OEMs

• Operator functional specification reference #

• BOM / Drawing #s

• Linkage to FMA

• Weight and dimensions

Service Conditions / Operating Parameters

• Water depth• Operating pressures / temperatures• Material class / requirements

Preferred Configurations / Characteristics• Location / orientation of elements• Labeling / markings

PQS Template – Op Parameters / Preferences

Vendor Design Rating Vendor Design

Water Depth (m) Orientation

Temperature Class Insulation requirements

Maximum Operating

Pressure (bar)

Operating Temperature

Range (oC)

Storage Temperature

Range (oC)

Water Temperature

Range (oC)

Material Class

Internal Exposure

External Exposure

Design Life (years)

Estimated Vibration (g, Hz)

Required Service Conditions/Operating Parameters Preferred Configuration Characteristics

• Existing industry qualification testing requirements

• Applicable industry standards / code references

• Vendor procedure and report #’s

• Scaled or tested clarification

• Supplemental qualification test requirements

PQS Template – Qualification Test Rqmts

Performance

VerificationStandard/Test Specification Vendor Test Procedure #

Vendor Comments /

Deviations from Standards/

Rev. #

Scaled or Tested Vendor Report #

Hydrostatic Pressure Tests

Temperature Cycling

Make - Break Cycling with

working pressure

Performance

VerificationStandard/Test Specification Vendor Test Procedure #

Vendor Comments /

Deviations from Standards/

Rev. #

Scaled or Tested Vendor Report #

Transient pressure

monitoring

Qualification - API or Other Current Industry Practice

Qualification - Supplemental Practices

PQS Template – Quality Requirements

Performance Validation Standard/Test Specification Vendor Procedure # Vendor Report #

NDE

Single Unit Testing

Chemical compatibility

Quality - Design Validation

Vendor Comments / Deviations from Standards/ Rev. #

• Design validation

PQS Template – ROV Tooling / Installation Aids

Description Vendor Component Identifier GA Dwg #

Running tool

seal replacement &

installation tool

Override tool

`

ROV Tooling, Installation Aids and Test Equipment

Comments including compliance with the above state service & functional requirements

Additional Comments

Proposed RP 17Q Document Outline

1 Scope

2 References

3 Terms, definitions, and abbreviated terms

4 Application

4.1 Classification and Designation of Components

4.2 Failure Mode Assessment (FMA)

4.3 Product Qualification Sheet (PQS)

5 Qualification Documents

5.1 Structure of Failure Mode Assessments

5.2 Layout of Product Qualification Sheets

6 Requirements

6.1 How to Use the Failure Mode Assessment Templates

6.2 How to Use the Product Qualification Sheets

Annex A (informative) Subsea component and category groupings

Annex B (informative) Product qualification sheets (PQS)

Annex C (informative) Contextual references

RP17Q - Subsea Equipment Qualification

14

Timeline of Activities

FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN

09

Kick-Off

Purpose, Methodology

Group Assessment Of

Categories and FMA and

PQS Templates

Committee Status Meeting

(Agree on Methodology)

Group Assignments

Comp. Leader. Meetings

Develop Outline Draft Of

RP17Q


(Comp. Leaders Report)

Discuss Draft

Comp. Leader. Meetings

Develop/Distribute RP 17Q

Draft Doc


(Comp. Leaders Report)

Discuss Revised Draft

Finalize RP 17Q For

Presentation To API


(Review of Final Submittal)

Submit To API

ACTIVITY

MONTH

(8 Feb)

(10 Mar)

(15 May)

(5 Sept)

(14 Nov)

Manifold components

breakdown

Manifold

Valves

Connectors

Instruments

Documented Subsea Equipment Qualification

Summary

• RP17Q provides a consistent methodology and documentation process

for subsea equipment qualification

• PQS process is modeled after proven industry systems – ISA topsides

standard

• Generic failure mode template will identify potential failure mechanisms

and highlight critical component features

• API RP 17Q is a structured starting point for management of design

changes, upgrades to new service conditions and qualification gaps

Back-Up

FMA – Thermoplastic HFL (Excerpt)

• 51 potential failure mechanism identified

• 9 qualification acceptance criteria's identified

PQS – Ball Valve (Draft Excerpt)

Component/Assembly: PQS Rev #: 0

Subsea Ball Valve 8" ball valve Date: 26-Jun-07

Company Spec Reference:

Subsea Valve Specification

Vendor: Anyone

Supplier: ABC

Weight: 250kg Dimensions (HxWxL) : FECA/FMA No.: X-87684

Vendor Design Rating Vendor Design

Water Depth 2000 m MSL 2500m MSL Orientation Vertical or horizontal Horizontal

Temperature class API Class "P-U", (-)29 to 82 oC (-)18 to 82

oC Insulation Sizing Compatibility 3" Max No Issue

Maximum Operating Pressure 345 bar 400 bar

Operating Temperature Range (-)18 to 121 oC (-)18 to 121

oC

Storage Temperature Range (-)40 to 70 oC (-)40 to 70

oC

Water Temperature Range 2 to 5 oC 0 to 50

oC

Material Class HH for Production & FF for Injection No issue

Exposure Rain, saltspray, saltwater immersion,

ice, snow, dust, hydrocarbons,

calcerous growth, insulation material

(see GP 65-08-01 for

properties/curing characteristics)

No issue

List of types of seals used ISO 13628-6 X-66632 None Tested X-66632RR

Breakout and Running Torques GP 65-01-01 X-66633 None Tested X-66632RR

Number of turns for operation API 17D X-66634 None Scaled X-66632RR

ROV mock-up Testing Additional Specifications. X-66635 None Tested X-66632RR

Hydrostatic Pressure Cycle Tests (c) API-6A/17D/ISO 13628-4 X07474 None Tested X-66632RR

Temperature Cycling (c) API-6A/17D/ISO 13628-4 X07475 None Tested X07475RR

Life Cycle/Endurance testing (c) API-6A/17D/ISO 13628-4 X07476 None Tested X07475RR

Pressure/Temperature Cycle (f) API-6A/17D/ISO 13628-4 X07477 None Tested X07475RR

Operating Force/Torque (f) API-6A/17D/ISO 13628-4 X07478 None Tested X07475RR

Thermochemical (f) API-6A/17D/ISO 13628-4 X07479 None Scaled X07475RR

Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) API 6A, API 17D, ISO 10423,

GP 65-04-04 - Subsea Valves

XYZ-9982

Positive Material Identification

XYZ-9982

Extended Factory Acceptance Test (EFAT) API 6A, API 17D, ISO 10423,


XYZ-9982 Material Qualification Testing (Tensile,

hardness, & impact)

XYZ-9982

System Integration Test (SIT) API 6A, API 17D, ISO 10423,


XYZ-9982 Dimensional Verification XYZ-9982

Site Received Test (SRT) API 6A, API 17D, ISO 10423 XYZ-9982 Surface NDE XYZ-9983

Prefered Configuration Characteristics

Component Description:

Vendor BOM No: X-1235788

Supplier BOM No: R-65893 Supplier Assembly DRWG No: R-376373

Vendor Part No:

X-123456

Vendor Assembly DRWG No: C-777773

Performance Assurance = Acceptance

Testing + QC

Standard/Test Specification Vendor Test Procedure

and Report No.

Standard/Test SpecificationPerformance Verification Scaled or TestedVendor Test Procedure

No.

Product Capability = Performance Verification + Performance Assurance

Required Service Conditions/Operating Parameters

Vendor Report No.

Standard/Specification

Vendor Comments/Deviations from

Standards.

Material Inspection and Quality Control Vendor Procedure and

Report No.

Valves and Actuators - Components

Valves and Actuators PQS Drafted

Ball Valves Yes

- Hydraulic Actuated -

- ROV/Manual -

Gate Valves Yes


- ROV/Manual -

Manual Needle Valve Yes

Small Manual Ball Valve Yes

Check Valve Yes

Diverter Valves Yes


- ROV/Manual -

SSIV Yes

Actuator No

- Linear Valve Overide Tool (LVOT) -

Trees and Chokes - Components

Trees and Chokes PQS Drafted

Tree Assembly - Horizontal Yes

- Tree Valve Block -

- Tree/BOP Interface -

- Tree/wellhead Interface -

- Connector -

- Isolation sleeve -

- Drill through evaluation -

-Tubing Hanger Assembly and Interface (Tree, DH) -

- Seals -

- Locking Mechanism -

- DHPT Interface -

- Upper and lower wireline plugs -

- Tree Cap (internal, external, debris) -

- Tubing Hanger Running Tool (THRT) -

- Tree Running Tool (TRT -

Tree Assembly - Vertical No

- Tree Valve Block -

- Tree/BOP Interface -

- Tree/wellhead Interface -

- Connector -

-Tubing Hanger Assembly and Interface (Tree, DH) -

- Seals -

- Locking Mechanism -

- DHPT Interface -

- Upper and lower wireline plugs -

- Tree Cap (internal, external, debris) -

- Tubing Hanger Running Tool (THRT) -

- Tree Running Tool (TRT -

Actuated Choke (universal [production, injection], gas lift) Yes

Retrievable (Choke Body and/or Insert) -

- Choke Insert Running/Retrieve Tool Yes

Manifold Assembly and Connectors - Components

Manifold Assembly and Connectors PQS Drafted

Fittings (Valve block, elbow, tee, cross, flange, etc.) Yes

Pipe Bends Yes

Pigging Loop Assembly Yes

Clamp Connection Yes

Collect Connector Yes

- Connector Gasket Changeout/Replacement Tools -

- Non-Integral Collet Connector Running Tool -

- Spreadbar and Rigging -

Flooding Cap Yes

Pressure Caps Yes

Rigid Pipe Yes

Hydraulic Subsea Controls - Components

Hydraulic - Subsea Controls

Chemical Injection Flow Control Yes

Control Line Accumulators No

HFL Assembly Yes

- Thermoplastic and HCR hoses -

- Steel tubes -

- Hydraulic Junction (MQC) Plate -

- Hydraulic Protective Caps -

- HFL Deployment Frames -

- Flying Lead Orientation Orientation Tool (FLOT) -

Hydraulic Couplers Yes

Seachest System No

Subsea Controls Fluid Yes

Tubing Yes

SCM - Hydraulic Components (Overall SCM) Yes

·Accumulator Yes

- Check Valves -

- LP Yes

- HP Yes

- Directional Control Valves -

- LP Yes

- HP Yes

- LP Choke Yes

- Dump Valve Yes

- Return Line Compensator No

- Selector Valves -

- LP Yes

- HP Yes

- Shuttle Valve Yes

- SoleNoid Valve Yes

- Supply Modules -

- LP Supply with Filter Module Yes

- HP Supply with Filter Module Yes

- Surge Damper No

- SCM Running/Retrieve Tool Yes

Electric Subsea Controls - Components

Controls - Electrical PQS Drafted

Dry Mate Connector No

Dry Mate Electrical Harness No

EFL Assembly Yes

- EFL Deployment Frames -

Electrical Wet Mate Connector Yes

- Parking receptical -

- Electrical Protective Caps -

Electrical Cable Terminations and Splitter No

Flow Meters -

- MPFM (Multiphase Flow Meter) Yes

- WGM (Wet Gas Meter) Yes

- SPM (Singlephase Flow Meter) Yes

Analogue Pressure and Temperature -

- Analogue Process Transmitter Yes

- Analogue Process Pressure Transmitter Yes

- Analogue Process Pressure and Temperature Transmitter Yes

- Analogue Process Dual Redundant Pressure Transmitter Yes

- Analogue Process Dual Redundant Pressure and Temperature Transmitter Yes

Digital Pressure and Temperature -

- Digital Process Transmitter Yes

- Digital Process Pressure Transmitter Yes

- Digital Process Pressure and Temperature Transmitter Yes

- Digital Process Dual Redundant Pressure Transmitter Yes

- Digital Process Dual Redundant Pressure and Temperature Transmitter Yes

Pig Detector - Acoustic Yes

Sand Detector - Intrusive primary Yes

Sand Detector - Acoustic No

SCM - Electrical Components (Overall SCM) Yes

- Subsea Electronic Module Yes

- Valve Electronic Module Yes

Coating and Insulation - Components

Coating and Insulation PQS Drafted

External Coating System Yes

Wet Insulation Yes

CP System Yes

Completion Equipment - Components

Completion Equipment PQS Drafted

IWOCS -

- IWOCS Assembly Yes

- IWOCS Electrical Flying Lead Yes

- IWOCS EQD Assembly Yes

- IWOCS Hydraulic Flying Lead Yes

- IWOCS Umbilical and Jumper Yes

Wellhead - Component Listing

Wellhead Equipment PQS Drafted

LP Conductor Housing and Running Tools No

HP Conductor Housing and Running Tools No

Casing Hanger and Running Tools No

Annulus Steal Assemblies No

Wear Bushings /Bore Protectors No

Lockdown Bushings No

Submudline System and Running tools No

BOP Test Tools No

Attachment U

Rev2: 4/05

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE STANDARDS RESOURCE & RESEARCH REQUEST

Standard Designation (e.g., MPMS 5.2): Budget Year:

Title, Edition:

Matrix Ranking (Class 1, 2 or 3):

Subcommittee: SC17

Proposed Action (new standard, revise, reaffirm, withdraw): New RP

PART 1 – Committee Resources

RESOURCE PLAN

What is the business need for the proposed action? If possible, please indicate potential cost savings to industry.

Blockages in umbilical fluid lines or associated components are a major industry problem, especially as the cost of a blockage in terms of remediation and lost production is of very high order of magnitudes: Blockages in subsea production control and chemical injection lines are most commonly caused by fluid change-out operations. Further instances ranging from poor design of SPS’s / service fluids through to bad operational practices are also known to cause blockages. These blockages can occur at any stage in the life of a SPS, including commissioning following installation of the SPS. Remedial work, in an attempt to unblock a fluid line, can be very costly especially if vessel mobilizations are involved. Operator case example: 5 scale/corrosion inhibitor chemical cores blocked; DSV cost: $3.5 million; Deferred Production cost: $2 million; Unable to unblock any cores, so all 5 spare cores utilized – no redundancy left. If new umbilical require in future, then this requires significant manufacturing lead time and installation costs. The RP document generated through a collaborative effort among operators, equipment manufacturers, fluid suppliers and engineering houses will benefit the offshore hydrocarbons production industry in obtaining a better understanding of the blockage issues and to formulate a strategy as to the way forward to minimise the risk of such occurrences.

Attachment U

Rev2: 4/05

What is the scope of the standard?

The JIP BASICS (Blockage Avoidance in Subsea Injection and Control Systems) kicked off in late 2006 with the aim of generating two outputs. The first is a Recommended Practice (RP) document on how to avoid blockages in the subsea system.

The RP document now covers recommendations from the FEED stage through to decommissioning of a field. It covers all aspects of fluid injection and controls, covering subjects as diverse as: fluid design, fluid cleanliness, system design (topside, subsea and sub-mudline and integration thereof), operational handling/protocols, bunkering, materials of construction, fluid change-out, seawater ingress and potential interventions.

The RP specifies requirements and gives recommendations for the design and operation of sub-sea production systems with the aim of preventing blockages in control and chemical injections fluid conduits and associated connectors / fittings. In the context of design, it covers not only installed subsea hardware (trees, manifolds, etc.), the connecting linkages (jumper arrangements, umbilical systems, etc.), but the fluids to be conveyed, initially from the fluid manufacturers facilities through to bunkering at the host facility and, ultimately, injection or usage at remote subsea locations.

The guidelines set out the framework within which more detailed specifications and procedures shall be developed to address the particular features of specific installations as defined within a client’s scope of work. These guidelines indicate what needs to be taken into account and approaches that can be considered, or may be taken, in order that blockages do not occur during the installation, commissioning and operations of a sub-sea production system (SPS).

It should be noted, that the RP is not prescriptive and It does recognize that there are different solutions and that the inclusion of a particular approach identified in the document does not imply it is the only approach. Other approaches may be more suitable; this depends on the nature of the SPS and knowledge and experience of the system and fluid designers.

While the aim of this document is to prevent blockages in a SPS, it also addresses the issues of topside equipment which provides the control and chemical injection services necessary for the operation and performance of a SPS. The correct design of a SPS and the fluids to be utilized and operation of the SPS including topside fluid bunkering are critically important in avoiding blockages.

Is this standard on the work program of another standards development organization (ISO, ASTM, ASME, etc.)? If yes, is the work being coordinated with the appropriate group? Are there special circumstances that would justify independent API initiation of the proposed action?

No

Are a volunteer chair, content manager, and group of experts available to perform the proposed action? Please include names and company affiliation if available.

There are 16 signed up participants representing operators, equipment manufacturers, fluid suppliers, and engineering houses. All participants are engaged with the drafting of the RP and where necessary draw upon expertise within their companies (worldwide). Dave Stables (Volunteer chair and Content Manager) – DUCO Ltd.; Experts – BG (Rob Bain); BP (John Wood); Chevron (Richard Gale and Karen Maxwell); ConocoPhillips (John Clapham); Eon-Ruhrgas (Ray Honeysett); Maersk Oil (Ian Watt); Nexen (Vivian Fallon); RWE (Martin Jungbluth); Shell (Phil Webb); Cameron (Thomas Senne); FMC (Jan Ramsberg); JP Kenny (Joe Cross); Castrol (Alan O Donnell); MacDermid (Simon McManus); Baker Petrolite (Steve Jackson); Clariant (Nigel Badiozzaman); Champion Technologies (Alan Thompson and Noel Brissard); MI Swaco (Alyn Jenkins).

Is there a need to commit resources to supplement the development of the draft? Would a paid content specialist accelerate progress on the revision? Is there a readily available content specialist?

No – the JIP has the capability to develop the draft.

Attachment U

Rev2: 4/05

Are there special format requirements for final document (i.e., knowledge of ISO template required), significant graphics, photos or equations required that would need extraordinary resources?

No – the JIP has the capability to undertake this formatting.

Please provide any other information that is pertinent to the proposed action?

The JIP is a by-product of an earlier workshop held by the Umbilical Manufactures Federation (UMF) and the Society of Underwater Technology (SUT) during January 2005, in Aberdeen. The workshop was broken into two parts; the morning session consisted of fluid manufactures and operators providing examples of where blockages had occurred and there root cause; the afternoon session broke into smaller working groups, who discussed the mornings discussion by suggesting ways to prevent blockages occurring. The workshop culminated in a distillation of the outputs from the working groups and was followed by a report on the findings and suggestions as the way forward. From this workshop a clear need was identified that a JIP should be started with the aim of generating this RP and a Design Verification (DV) document specifically aimed at the qualification of Production Chemicals (although also touches on Control Fluids that are covered under ISO13628-6 Annex C), which is also being generated by the JIP.

What are the implications of not initiating the proposed action? Include potential safety, reliability, environmental and financial impacts that may arise.

For many years, operators, umbilical manufacturers, fluid suppliers, and engineering houses have been aware of blockages occurring in umbilical systems in service but, because of secrecy within the industry, such blockages have rarely been made public. As a result this JIP is unique in that it has drawn all aspects of the industry together to develop the RP. If the proposed action is not initiated then the wealth and depth of learning and experience contained within the RP will not be effectively disseminated to the wider industry and blockages in Chemical Injection and Control Systems will continue to occur throughout the world. This will continue to result in significant production down time and significant costs related to blockage remediation (vessel mobilization etc.) as described above.

Is there research proposed to accomplish the proposed action? If yes, complete Part 2 of Resource Model.

No

Project Timing Start date: Draft ready for letter ballot:

TG/WG (estimated number of volunteers needed)

Chair (“$ amount “if needed” or

volunteer”)

Content Management (“$ amount “if needed” or

volunteer”)

Resource Request ($ and/or people)

PART 2 – Research

RESEARCH PLAN

Proposed Research Title:

Proposed Project Scope:

Research Amount: $

What is the business need for the proposed research?

Is the proposed research edition-specific for a single standard or will it result in technology enhancement for multiple standards?

Is research necessary prior to scheduled revision or can it be done concurrent with revision?

Attachment U

Rev2: 4/05

How does the research support the proposed action identified in Part 1?

Is a joint industry project (JIP) a possibility?

Are there opportunities for leveraged research with other organizations?

What are the implications of not performing the proposed research?

Estimated Completion Date:

Prior Research Funding (related to current edition of the standard or revision):

Anticipated Future Research Needs (related to current edition of the standard or revision):

Year 2: $ Year 3: $ Year 4: $

Total Request (Part 1+Part 2): $

Submitter:

Date:

3/22/05

Attachment V

Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industry -- Reliability modelling and calculation of safety systems.

Industries du Pétrole, pétrochimie et gaz naturel -- Modélisation et calcul

fiabilistes des systèmes de sécurité

Outline Safety systems are widely used in the petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industry and nowadays safety instrumented systems - the so-called HIPS (High Integrity Protection Systems) - are being employed more often in place of conventional protection systems. Achieving a high degree of safety is of utmost importance for such systems but, from the industrial point of view, this must be done without impeding too much the production availability of the installation. Therefore both safety and dependability targets shall be considered when designing such systems and this requires undertaking rather complex probabilistic calculations. They are all the more complex than safety (instrumented) systems are generally periodically tested. That perhaps constitutes the most difficult subject encountered within the reliability field and induces difficulties which are beyond the common knowledge of engineers. Safety and dependability should be handled within the same reliability framework but, in industry, they are generally considered separately and handled by persons belonging to different offices. In the same way the international safety standards exclude the dependability from their scopes and the international dependability standard excludes safety from theirs. This encourages handling safety and dependability separately and this often results in achieving safety to the detriment of the dependability. This may lead to important production losses and to dangerous situations when a safety system is disconnected because it produces too many spurious trips. Beyond the probability of failure of individual safety systems, avoiding a given accident often implies the failure of several interdependent protection layers and this is the probability of accident which is really important. Unfortunately, combining the probability of failure of individual protection layers lead to non-conservative estimations and holistic approaches encompassing all protection layers within the same model shall be undertaken. The probabilistic calculations usually undertaken within the petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas may have difficulties to handle properly the problems identified above but, fortunately, over the past fifty years, a lot of efficient methods and tools have been developed in the reliability field. Closing the gap between this state of the art and the application of probabilistic calculations within the industry will solve the problems. The probabilistic approaches may be broadly split according to the following classes:

1. Analytical calculations 1.1. Approximated formulae 1.2. Boolean models

1.2.1. Reliability Block Diagrams 1.2.2. Fault Trees

1.3. Markov graphs 2. Monte Carlo simulation on behavioural models

2.1. Petri Nets 2.2. Formal languages

If the approximated formulae are useful to handle simple safety loops (or parts of safety loops), the other methods shall be considered as soon as redundancy is implemented or multi-layers safety systems are considered. Most of them are based on graphical representations and this allow to spend the time on building the (holistic) models rather on calculations which, on the other hand, may be now performed by the efficient and powerful algorithms published and available. Software packages are available which can be used directly or with some adjustments for this purpose. The approaches are based on different sound mathematical backgrounds and are not actually interchangeable. For example, in the petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industry:

Attachment V

- Boolean models (mainly fault trees) are very efficient for safety systems made of "reasonably" independent components (topside HIPS working on demand),

- Markov graph are efficient for small complex HIPS working on demand or in continuous mode of operation,

- Monte Carlo simulation (mainly with Petri nets) is very efficient for safety systems made of dependent components (subsea or preventive HIPS, maintenance policy, rig mobilisation ...),

- etc. The planned delivery will provide guidelines to help the engineers understand sufficiently the theoretical background, chose the relevant models according to his problem and use them if the full knowledge of the underlying hypothesis and limitations. It may be split into the following main parts:

Introduction

Identification of the various problems

link between traditional and standardized (e.g. SIL) reliability parameters,

Description of the various methods, possibilities and limitations, and analysis of the best way to use or adapt them for the petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industry purposes,

Conclusion The very aim is to help engineers to improve the evaluation of the predicted performance of individual and complex multi-layer safety systems in order to design safety system with a good balance between safety and dependability.

Attachment V

NEW WORK ITEM PROPOSAL

Date of presentation

2007-09-04 Reference number (to be given by the Secretariat)

Proposer

SN ISO/TC 67 / SC N 1012

Secretariat

API for

ANSI

A proposal for a new work item within the scope of an existing committee shall be submitted to the secretariat of that committee with a copy to the Central Secretariat and, in the case of a subcommittee, a copy to the secretariat of the parent technical committee. Proposals not within the scope of an existing committee shall be submitted to the secretariat of the ISO Technical Management Board.

The proposer of a new work item may be a member body of ISO, the secretariat itself, another technical committee or subcommittee, or organization in liaison, the Technical Management Board or one of the advisory groups, or the Secretary-General.

The proposal will be circulated to the P-members of the technical committee or subcommittee for voting, and to the O-members for information.

See overleaf for guidance on when to use this form.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Proposals without adequate justification risk rejection or referral to originator. Guidelines for proposing and justifying a new work item are given overleaf.

Proposal (to be completed by the proposer)

Title of proposal (in the case of an amendment, revision or a new part of an existing document, show the reference number and current title)

English title Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries -- Reliability modelling

and calculation of safety systems

French title (if available)

Pétrole, pétrochimie et gas naturel --Modélistaion et calcul fiabilistes des

systèmes de sécurité.

Scope of proposed project

Creation of a technical report to provide guidelines on the assessment

reliability of safety systems in the petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas

industries

Concerns known patented items (see ISO/IEC Directives Part 1 for important guidance)

Yes No If "Yes", provide full information as annex

Envisaged publication type (indicate one of the following, if possible)

International Standard Technical Specification Publicly Available Specification Technical Report

Purpose and justification (attach a separate page as annex, if necessary)

Safety systems are widely used in the petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas

industries, and safety instrumented systems are being employed more often in place

of conventional protection systems. This requires more complex probabilistic

calculations to be performed. There is a gap between the state of the art of

current literature and the application of probablistic calculations within the

industry. There is a need to close this gap through establishing sound

reliability models for the assessment of safety systems. The planned delivery

will be a guideline to help engineers understand the theoretical background to

improve the evaluation of the predicted performance of individual and complex

multi-layers safety systems.

Target date for availability (date by which publication is considered to be necessary) 2009

Attachment V

Proposed development track 1 (24 months) 2 (36 months - default) 3 (48 months)

Relevant documents to be considered

ISO 20815 and IEC 61025, 61078, 61165, 61508, 61511.

Relationship of project to activities of other international bodies

IEC

Liaison organizations

Need for coordination with:

IEC CEN Other (please specify)

Preparatory work (at a minimum an outline should be included with the proposal)

A draft is attached An outline is attached. It is possible to supply a draft by Q2, 2008

The proposer or the proposer's organization is prepared to undertake the preparatory work required Yes No

Proposed Project Leader (name and address)

Jean-Pierre Signoret

Total

[email protected]

Name and signature of the Proposer

(include contact information)

Stein Østerlie

Standards Norway

[email protected]

Comments of the TC or SC Secretariat

Supplementary information relating to the proposal

This proposal relates to a new ISO document;

This proposal relates to the amendment/revision of an existing ISO document;

This proposal relates to the adoption as an active project of an item currently registered as a Preliminary Work Item;

This proposal relates to the re-establishment of a cancelled project as an active project.

Other:

Voting information

The ballot associated with this proposal comprises a vote on:

Adoption of the proposal as a new project

Adoption of the associated draft as a committee draft (CD) (see ISO Form 5, question 2.3.1)

Adoption of the associated draft for submission for the enquiry vote (DIS or equivalent) (see ISO Form 5, question

2.3.2)

Other:

Annex(es) are included with this proposal (give details)

Date of circulation

2008-03-19

Closing date for voting

2008-06-20

Signature of the TC or SC Secretary

David Miller

Use this form to propose: a) a new ISO document (including a new part to an existing document), or the amendment/revision of an existing ISO document;

b) the establishment as an active project of a preliminary work item, or the re-establishment of a cancelled project;

c) the change in the type of an existing document, e.g. conversion of a Technical Specification into an International Standard.

This form is not intended for use to propose an action following a systematic review - use ISO Form 21 for that purpose.

Proposals for correction (i.e. proposals for a Technical Corrigendum) should be submitted in writing directly to the secretariat concerned.

Guidelines on the completion of a proposal for a new work item (see also the ISO/IEC Directives Part 1)

a) Title: Indicate the subject of the proposed new work item.

Attachment V

b) Scope: Give a clear indication of the coverage of the proposed new work item. Indicate, for example, if this is a proposal for a new document, or a proposed change (amendment/revision). It is often helpful to indicate what is not covered (exclusions).

c) Envisaged publication type: Details of the types of ISO deliverable available are given in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1 and/or the associated ISO Supplement.

d) Purpose and justification: Give details based on a critical study of the following elements wherever practicable. Wherever possible reference should be made to information contained in the related TC Business Plan.

1) The specific aims and reason for the standardization activity, with particular emphasis on the aspects of standardization to be covered, the problems it is expected to solve or the difficulties it is intended to overcome.

2) The main interests that might benefit from or be affected by the activity, such as industry, consumers, trade, governments, distributors.

3) Feasibility of the activity: Are there factors that could hinder the successful establishment or global application of the standard?

4) Timeliness of the standard to be produced: Is the technology reasonably stabilized? If not, how much time is likely to be available before advances in technology may render the proposed standard outdated? Is the proposed standard required as a basis for the future development of the technology in question?

5) Urgency of the activity, considering the needs of other fields or organizations. Indicate target date and, when a series of standards is proposed, suggest priorities.

6) The benefits to be gained by the implementation of the proposed standard; alternatively, the loss or disadvantage(s) if no standard is established within a reasonable time. Data such as product volume or value of trade should be included and quantified.

7) If the standardization activity is, or is likely to be, the subject of regulations or to require the harmonization of existing regulations, this should be indicated.

If a series of new work items is proposed having a common purpose and justification, a common proposal may be drafted including all elements to be clarified and enumerating the titles and scopes of each individual item.

e) Relevant documents and their effects on global relevancy : List any known relevant documents (such as standards and regulations), regardless of their source. When the proposer considers that an existing well-established document may be acceptable as a standard (with or without amendment), indicate this with appropriate justification and attach a copy to the proposal.

f) Cooperation and liaison: List relevant organizations or bodies with which cooperation and liaison should exist.

Attachment V

Return forms to: Shail Ghaey API 1220 L St NW Washington DC 20005, USA Email: [email protected]

Fax: +1 202-962-4797

VOTE ON NEW WORK ITEM PROPOSAL

Date of circulation 2008-03-19

Reference number

ISO/TC 67 / SC N 1012

Closing date for voting 2008-06-20

Member body voting

ISO/TC 67 / SC

Title

Materials, equipment and offshore structures for the petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries

Circulated to P-members of the committee for vote and to O-members for information. P-members of the technical committee or subcommittee concerned have an obligation to vote.

Secretariat API FOR ANSI (USA)

Please send this form, duly completed at all points, to the Secretariat indicated above (not to ISO Central Secretariat). MS Word is advised.

NOTE 1 All P members of the committee must vote and complete all questions on this form or their votes may be invalidated and

not counted in the decision on this proposal.

Title of proposal

English title Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries -- Reliability modelling and calculation of safety systems

French title (optional)

Pétrole, pétrochimie et gas naturel -- Modélistaion et calcul fiabilistes des systèmes de sécurité

1 We agree that a globally relevant International Standard on this subject is feasible and therefore agree to the addition of the proposed new work item to the program of work of the committee:

Yes (If “Yes”, please check one of the following):

a. We agree to the addition of the proposed work item as a preliminary project (stage 0).

b. We agree to advance this item for further development of a working draft within a working group (stage 20).

c. We accept the attached draft document as a working draft for further development within a working group (stage 20).

d. We agree to the circulation of the attached draft document as a Committee Draft (CD)

e. We agree to the circulation of the attached draft document as a Draft International Standard (DIS)

NOTE 2 The latter three options above are applicable only in those cases where an additional vote for adoption of a

Attachment V

draft is indicated by the committee secretariat on the ISO Form 4 under the section "Voting information”. Please now complete sections 2, 3 and 4 below and submit vote.

No. Please submit technical reasons under section 3 below and submit vote.

Abstention/Have no interest

2 Relevant documents Standard(s), regulation(s), and other relevant documentation existing in our country, with any remarks concerning their application if necessary and consequences for global relevance, as well as copyright information on these documents, are attached:

Yes

No

If "Yes", please give references here, or as a separate annex: 3 Comments Please submit any additional comments that you wish to make, either immediately below or indicate immediately below that you have attached an annex providing additional comments. 4 Participation We are committed to participate actively in the development of the project, at least by commenting on working drafts:

Yes

No

NOTE 3 All P-members voting "Yes" above must nominate an expert or this vote will not be counted. NOTE 4 P-members voting "No" above may nevertheless nominate experts.

Name(s) and contact information of nominated expert(s)

Attachment V

An annex is attached to this form

Member body voting

Date

Name