ISO 17078 Side Pocket Mandrel System Task Group

Meeting Minutes, 25 July, 2000

Atlanta, Georgia, Hampton Inn

Introductions:

Each attendee was introduced and an attendee’s list was prepared and provided to Mr. Mabry.

Attending was:Mr. Wayne MabrySchlumberger (Chairperson)

Mr. Ken DeckerDecker Technology

Mr. David McCalvinSchlumberger

Mr. Jim HoltWeatherford

Mr. Roger StinsonSchlumberger

Mr. Cleon DunhamShell

Ms. Shauna NoonanChevron

Mr. Dean ChapmanSchlumberger

Reviewed and approved minutes of last meeting, May 2, 2000

Discussion of item K, Next Meeting, was determined to be undecided and would be added to this meetings agenda.

Agenda,

A request was made to provide straw minutes prior to future meetings.

This agenda was prepared at the start of the meeting.

  1. Review and approve the minutes of the previous meeting.
  2. Review action items from the previous meeting.
  3. Review comments included within document 17078.1
  4. Review structure of quality / design matrix
  5. Confirm time / place / host for the next two meetings
  6. Review and update Gant Chart
  7. Clarify 4 classes of service

Principal Discussions

  1. Open action items from previous meeting

Items 1-7:complete

Item 8:not complete. Change responsible individuals from Mr. Mabry and Mr. McCalvin to Mr. Mabry and Mr. Chapman

Item 9:not complete

Item 10:not complete. The requirement should be changes from providing 11V1 to providing 11V2.

Item 11-12: not complete

  1. Future meetings are tentatively scheduled as follows:

October 6th hosted by Mr. Decker in Dallas

February 8th hosted by Mr. Holt in Houston

May 3rd hosted by Mr. Mabry in Houston

In conjunction with the SPE meeting in October

  1. A draft revision of ISO 17078.1 was distributed after the last meeting as it was decided to work through the document to review all comments. Mr. Durham agreed to take detailed notes for updating of the draft. The following were assigned as action items to be completed prior to the next meeting unless otherwise noted. All information, which is required to update the document, should be forwarded to Mr. Dunham for inclusion in the draft.

Mr. Holt to define “Deflector vs. Discriminator” pg. 3

Mr. McCalvin to define “Date of Manufacture” pg. 3

Mr. Chapman to define “Hydraulic Type Mandrels” pg. 3

Mr. McCalvin to supply “Supplier/Mfg.” and “User/Purchaser” definitions

Mr. Durham to define “Operating Environment” pg. 5

Mr. Decker and Ms. Noonan to define “Tensile Load” pg. 5

Mr. McCalvin to define “Size” pg. 5

Ms. Noonan to look at deployment methods and there definitions

Mr. Holt to forward definitions of “Drifting” to Mr. Durham

Ms. Noonan to develop template for use by purchaser/user as informative annexes pg. 8

Mr. Stinson to review and recommend wording for clause 5.3 pg. 8

Definition of standard mandrel characteristics to be done by Mr. Mabry, Mr. Holt, Mr. Stinson and Mr. Chapman

Mr. Mabry and Mr. Holt to write clause 5.5 pg. 10

Mr. Mabry to write/rewrite 5.4.4 and 5.6

There was significant discussion on “material service class” or material selection. It was agreed that specifying materials for use in service would be difficult. The general agreement was that users would want some direction but that manufacturers would find it difficult to separate by the application.

  1. Mr. Mabry presented a design verification matrix. There was significant discussion as to the distinction between verification, validation and quality. Mr. McCalvin presented his understanding of the ISO interpretations. A generalization was presented that verification was at the design level and validation was at the product level. The following example for a validation matrix was discussed.

Ex:

Validation Grade

4321

no test 100%grade 3 +grade 2 +

requiredID Pressurestatistical:100%

ID DriftBurstBurst

OD DriftDriftCollapse

NDEDrift

NDE

Functional

Features Test

  1. Mr. Dunham will reword clause 6.2 pg. 12
  1. Mr. Mabry and Mr. McCalvin will write the lead paragraph and review body for clause 6.3 pg. 13
  1. Mr. Chapman will review industry standards and recommend wording for clause 6.3.1 pg. 13. It was discussed at length that although it would be beneficial to provide more stringent requirements for design acceptance criteria it was the general believe that broader guidelines would generate wider acceptance. The groups direction was that we should tighten guidelines but allow manufactures significant flexibility.
  1. Mr. Mabry agreed to review and rewrite clause 6.4 pg. 14 on design verification. The following matrix for design verification was discussed.

Ex:

Validation Grade

4321

objective Mersk test

evidencePass validation test for D1

Verify max stress levels

Verify deviated well capability

Tensile load test

Corrosion test

Erosion test

  1. The status of the next meeting was discussed. Mr. McCalvin suggested a longer meeting session to allow for more rapid progress. It was recommended that we start Thursday afternoon after the VPC meeting. Possibly to be help in the Stokley Hotel.
  1. Mr. McCalvin agreed to write the introduction and scope for ISO 17078.3 prior to the next meeting.
  1. The Gant chart was reviewed. It was noted that the document development was behind schedule per the current chart. It was recommended that the goals be moved out one year and then further evaluated after the next meeting. Mr. Mabry agreed to update the chart and forward for inclusion in the minutes.

Submitted by Dean Chapman

1