Subcommittee 10

General Session

Chairman: David Stiles

Grand Hyatt Hotel, San Antonio, Texas

David Stiles called the meeting to order at 1:30 PM on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

Approval of Minutes from Calgary

The first order of business was to approve the minutes from the 2008 Summer Meeting at Calgary. David Stiles read the minutes. A motion to approve the minutes was moved and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Review of Task Groups and Work Groups

David gave an over view of the charges for the task groups and work groups. New chairs were announced. It was noted that Ron Crook is looking for a partner to help with the TG on Publications.

Reports of Task Groups and Work Groups

Task Group and Work Group chairpersons read the minutes from their respective teams. John St. Clergy read minutes on Bill Caruthers behalf and Larry Moran read minutes on Tom Griffin’s behalf. The minutes are available on the SC-10 website.

Charge / Chairperson(s)
TG on Cooperative Testing / Bill Carruthers
WG on Compressive Strength / Scott Saville
TG on Performance Testing of Well Cementing Composites / Bill Caruthers
WG on Test Methods for Determination of Dynamic Settling / Robert Beirute
TG on Mechanical Behavior of Cements / Robert Darbe
WG on Evaluation of NAF Removal and Water Wetting by Spacers / Tom Griffin
TG on Mechanical Cementing Plugs Used in Casing, Tubing and Drill Pipe / Hank Rogers
RG for ISO Liaison / Derrick Williams

After the discussion period, David Stiles tendered a motion to accept the reports. The motion moved, seconded, and passed unanimously.

Old Business

Active Document Status Review:

David Stiles reviewed active document:

  • API RP 10B-6: The ballot to adopt back ISO 10426-6 had a persuasive Negative Vote regarding patent issues on the ultrasonic determination of gel strength. After numerous discussions with interested parties and consultation with the API legal department, it was deemed that the best way to proceed is to not adopt back the document. This will not affect the status of 10426-6 which is already an IS.
  • API RP 10D: The 5 year reaffirm ballot passed.
  • API RP 10F: The 5 year reaffirm ballot passed.
  • API 10 TR-1: This document was published September 2008.

New Business

API RP10B-6:

David Stiles discussed that one of the methods within ISO 10426-6 was patented protected and could not be accepted back as RP10B-6 because API policies restrict patent devices being written into standards when other methods exist.

A motion was made by WC Jones: “That Committee 10 adopt back the procedures described in ISO 10426-6 on Gel Strength determination omitting the procedures that requires the use of a patented ultra-sonic device for the API RP Document.” This motioned was seconded by Rick Lukay and passed unanimously and will proceed to letter ballot.

It was discussed that leaving the procedure out of the document may unintentionally leave the impression that the method is unsatisfactory because it is not in an API RP. However, this was not the intention of the SC. In fact API has policies that prohibit standards written around a device that are patent protected. The policy detailed in section 8.3.2 of Procedures for Standards Development – Third Edition, May 2006 was reviewed.

Robert Beirute motioned to add a paragraph referring readers of the API RP10-6 to the ISO 10426-6 document for this patent protected device but withdrew this motion before it was seconded.

Ron Crook stated that the document could be adopted back as a technical report and would not be subjected to the patent restrictions.

Craig Gardner volunteered, with the help of WC Jones, to put together wording about the difference in the two documents that would go through legal review.

API Monogram:

An email from Kelly Reyes requested a requirement to quote for nonconformance, stating:

  • API Spec 10A Section 11 and Annex B do not specify the location the API Monogram should be placed.
  • The Monogram Licensing Agreement states that the API Monogram cannot be placed on shipping documents.
  • Isn’t the bill of lading a shipping document?

A copy of the actual email contents can be found in the meeting presentation attached with these minutes. Confusion exists because API Spec 10A Section 11 is interpretedto read that the name and mark of the relevant quality system shall be marked or attached to the bill of lading for each bulk shipment. Shail Ghaey said that clarification needed to be added to API Spec 10A Annex B which is specific to the use of the API Monogram.

Bill Caruthers agreed that the TG on Monograms would look into the matter and make recommendations to SC10 if any actions are required.

Document Retention:

It was discussed that in a recent attempt to search API archives that Roland Goodman said meeting minutes are retained for only 5 years. This is contrary to the perception that minutes were a permanent record. The concern that work documented in previous meeting minute attachments would be lost was expressed.Shail Ghaeyagreed to clarify retention policy and suggest the proper way for file storing.

Upcoming meetings:

Upcoming API meeting were presented:

  • 2009 - Exploration & Production Standards Conference: Denver
  • 2010 - Exploration & Production Standards Winter Meeting: New Orleans
  • 2010 - Exploration & Production Standards Conference: Washington DC
  • 2011 - Exploration & Production Standards Winter Meeting: Fort Worth
  • 2011 - Exploration & Production Standards Conference: San Francisco

Adjournment

After no additional business was proposed, Craig Garner moved that the meeting be adjourned. After the motion was seconded by Tom Dealy, David Stiles adjourned the meeting at 3:03 PM.