MINUTES of ECSOEM/SC8/TG3 TASK GROUP ON

HOISTING EQUIPMENT (Spec 8A, RP 8B, Spec 8C)

June 2011 Exploration & Production Standards Conference

on Oilfield Equipment & Materials Date: Wed. June 29, 2011 Chairman: Ken Kondo Time: 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. Minutes: Shawn Firenza SC8 Agenda Item Numbers: [Year]NXX

[Year]: Single digit year of introduction N: 0 = No Specific Task Group 3= TG3 (Hoisting Equip.) XX = Sequential Number

1. Open Meeting Introduction and Safety. Ken opened meeting, discussed safety and evacuation. Everyone introduced themselves. Motion by: Second by: Motion to: Motion

2. Attendance List. Attendance list and roster circulated

3. Minutes of Last TG3 Meeting. Motion by: Norm Dyer Second by: Randy Pyrch Motion to: Accept the 2010 minutes as posted. Motion Passed

4. Old Business - Hoisting Equipment (Items Y3XX)

a. Item 1301: Report on ISO activities – Hoisting Equipment Modifications to ISO 13535 At the June 2003 Conference, the following activity took place: Modifications to ISO13535 implemented in the 4th Ed of 8C will be submitted to ISO in an NWI. Depending on the progress of the WG on Guide Dollies, the NWI may be delayed to incorporate that work as well. The chair asks that any (ISO13535) errors and omissions (not found in the 8C 4th Ed, Annex D) be reported to him in preparation for the ISO NWI. At the June 2004 Conference, the following activity took place: The chair noted that a project leader will be appointed to pursue the development of this NWI and to guide it thru the ISO process. The new ISO PL for ISO 13534 and 13535 is Alf Henry Aker (DnV).

Modifications to ISO 13534

Report by Alf Aker

At the June 2005 Conference, the following activity took place: ISO 13534 accepted by 5 member countries for starting of revision in May 2005. At the June 2006 Conference: Alf Aker – Currently working to put together both of the 7L and 8B into 13534 with DIS targeted for October 2006. Work currently on target.

Subsequent to the 2006 Conference:

DIS 13534 draft is addressed a part of the TG2 meeting. DIS 13535 is in editing and could possible be distributed for review prior to meeting.

At the June 2007 Conference: Alf Aker – Both documents 13534 & 13535 revised including items balloted and accepted by API. Goal is to bring the ISO and API documents in sync. The Draft DIS version is available. Items to discuss and possible include Guide Dollies (13535). 13534 has gone through a major revision, draft DIS is being reviewed and will be available in the near future.

At the June 2008 Conference: Alf Aker – Comments need to be forwarded through the ISO system for review and implementation. DIS closes 21-July-2008

At the June 2009 Conference:

Alf Aker did not attend conference. No update on Status of ISO13535 or ISO 13534.

Alf Aker: Unfortunately I'm not able to attend the conference

this year.

Comments DIS circulation currently being implemente d for both ISO13534 & ISO13535. We are running behind schedule, but comments should be implemented and FDIS ready for circulation over the summer.

As for the Guide Dollies work group and NWI, please keep me included. At The June 2010 Conference Report by Alf Reidar Johansen Drafts will be out by Tuesday for ISO 13534 and 13535 DIS with ballot comments as circulated to the ISO group.

Small group to review within a week, and submit the document for an FDIS ballot. API is preparing to move ahead with an API only revision of 8C (rather than joint API/ISO standard). However, the API subcommittee 4 resolved to build a new common draft with the API ballot items and the latest DIS comments. The new document should be resubmitted as a second DIS ballot. Mark Sibille suggests the group needs more than a week to review and comment on the DIS; we should meet again as TG3 to review the DIS. Alf Reidar will submit the DIS documents to Ken Kondo. Shail Ghaey may be able to create a comparison document. Also, the DIS will probably be in track changes, but it may show items that have already been included in 8C. Motion by: Mark Sibille Second by: Tom Becker Motion to: The TG3 chair will schedule a review meeting in Q4 to review the DIS documents prior to the first of the year pending circulation to the TG Motion passed. Why are API and ISO so out of sync on this draft? We are not really out of sync, as the ISO documents have been back adopted. However, API has balloted a few items that are included in addenda. The DIS submitted in the last ISO ballot included the API addenda. We need to revisit a better system for working between API and ISO.

After the June 2010 Conference

- Alf Aker provided copy of ISO DIS 13535. - API Staff provided comparison of API 8C and ISO DIS 13535. - E-Mail discussions of adding new balloted items to ISO 13535.

- Discussion on Elevator accidents and the specifications by which they are designed. - Work Group Meeting 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. Tuesday June 28, 2011 Standards Conference. At The June 2011 Conference Alf Aker gave report on ISO activities. DIS comments have been included in the draft of ISO 13535. API balloted revisions have been included in the new draft. Additionally, EN 13155 standard for elevators is being produced. Alf proposed that we incorporate these new requirements in an Annex and SR 7. There are a number of concerns with the technical requirements in the current annex. Small work group has reviewed and revised this annex text to produce a first draft. Bob dePont presented Annex C to comply with the European standard. The draft would comply with the machinery directive

strictly for elevators, but with an eye to covering all 8C equipment in the future. Mark Sibille gave this a 45 minute review and mark-up, cautions to not approach this from a reactionary standpoint. Would prefer to apply this approach to the entire scope of covered equipment. Bob dePont believes that this will drag down the process. Mark Sibille would see this as being limited now to allow the FDIS to proceed, but with an ongoing agenda item. The current edition is 11 years and it is important to get the spec to FDIS. Robert Urbanowski – this would need to be reviewed by API legal. They may find it contentious. Alf Aker – This is only an annex to meet European requirement. This is no different that the CVN requirements or other SR. It is just a guideline for doing risk assessment. We are now discussing whether we can include this in the upcoming FDIS and align the ISO document with API. We want to take back control of the specification for elevators in Europe. Motion by: Bob dePont Second by: Mark Sibille Motion to: After cleaning up the document with a work group, send the proposed wording to API for legal review and letter ballot Motion Passes Ad hoc group will meet after the TG3 meeting. Bob will chair and any interested parties should see Bob.

b. Item 2301 - Guide Dollies. (NWI SC802-4) As a result of balloting of the “adopt-back” of ISO13535 as API 8C, 4th Edition, the subject of Guide Dollies was placed on the agenda of TG2. Coincidentally, TG1 had also placed Guide Dolly coverage on its agenda. A (TG1/TG2) joint workgroup was formed to address this issue. WG to be composed of: Dewayne Vogt (chair)

Samir Ghalayini A representative of National/Oilwell A representative of Varco A representative of Tesco

At the June 2003 Conference, the following activity took place: WG Report by Dewayne Vogt-

Lack of specific requirements in 4F and 8C necessitated this WG. The continuing agenda of the WG is to develop 8C-Section 9 coverage of guide dollies that would replace the 8C-Annex B once the issues of the extent of application of Sections 4 thru 8 could be decided. A review of impact on existing equipment will be done once draft requirements are prepared. Target to be completed by September. Motion to change annex B in 8C from informative to normative Motion: Dewayne Vogt 2nd: Bob dePont Motion approved

(Ballot Item Passed and published as 8C Addendum 1, 2004.)

At the June 2004 Conference, the following activity took place: WG Report by Dewayne Vogt- written report of the work group summarized to the Task Group. The WG plans to formulate draft revisions to 8C/13535, regarding guide dollies, for comment by 25 June 2004. After circulation by API staff, comments will be reviewed, the draft revised as necessary, and submitted to API staff by the end of July for subsequent letter ballot. LETTER BALLOT ITEM –upon submittal to staff.

At the June 2005 Conference, the following activity took place: Dewayne Vogt reported that work group members met 6/27/5. They are looking on aligning safety factors with AISC requirements and will continue to work on the revision of requirements for guide dollies in 8C. They will attempt to get a draft by mid-August 2005. At the June 2006 Conference: Some discussion occurred yesterday. Last work group report passed around. A draft for letter ballot was due in mid-August 2005. Dewayne Vogt is not available for comment. To date, nothing has been submitted for letter ballot. Dewayne Vogt is not available to continue as WG Chair. TG3 Chair to address the issue of vacant WG chair. Subsequent to the 2006 Conference: TG3 Chair to appoint WG chair, and provided him with the names of the WG members and a copy of the most recent draft. The WG is charged with assembling a proposal for letter ballot. At the June 2007 Conference: Dewayne Vogt – Presented the proposed guide dolly section 9.17 (see draft). Discussion – Impact testing. Originally, all dollies were exempted; we felt it was necessary to include for retractable dollies. Should impact be required for all dollies. Sheppard – Dollies are generally held in place by nuts and bolts which won’t meet CVN requirements. Most of the problems with Dollies have involved no secondary retention on fasteners and general wear and tear and lack of inspection. No value in CVN on material. Alf Aker – Appendix was created based on issues experienced in 1988. Loading was under estimated, and dolly frame was deformed. Later experiences showed cracks in welded construction on retractable dollies rather than fixed dollies. Horizontal acceleration is the key issue for impact loading and fatigue, so it is not applicable to fixed dollies. Sheppard – Only unusual loading occurs when the traveling equipment won’t self-align with the vertical load. Kubinski – What about addressing dropped objects. Sheppard – This should address secondary retention of fasteners. Sibille- Two years ago this was an agenda item, but it was not carried through on the agenda. Fatigue Life – Still a question about multiplier on service life. Aker – Only called for the retract/extend forces to be considered in fatigue, so 3 x service life is a safety factor. This has historically only been an issue on retractable dollies.

Dewayne Vogt to add wording to address secondary retention of fasteners for guide dollies prior to the SC8 meeting tomorrow afternoon. Ken Kondo to check previous minutes and agendas to review dropped object work items.

Motion by: Mark Sibille Second by: Alf Aker Motion to: Submit this draft to SC8 for consideration for letter ballot. Motion passed. Passed Letter Ballot with One (1) Negative Ballot. Negative comments are not resolved and will be further discussed at the 2008 Calgary Conference.

At the June 2008 Conference: Review of negative comments from the letter ballot. Jeff Sheppard (see ballot comments) - agreement was not reached with Jeff and Larry Wells on the amplitude of these vibrations due to the age of the data and analysis. Baker Hughes – Intech is the owner of the data. Mark Sibille – We need to consider progression of ISO 13535 to determine if there are any issues that need to be addressed immediately before the ISO DIS proceeds while the API work group revisits the text in 8C. Jeff Sheppard - willing to accept the DIS text as an interim solution until the work group can resolve his comments. PLC III recognizes some of the other fatigue modes. Mark Sibille – Suggest that 13535 be allow to proceed, and the WG reconvenes. Motion by: Mark Sibille Second by: Bide Alford Motion to: Accept ISO 13535 DIS text in sections 9.17.1 to 9.17.2.4 as an interim document, and send the guide dolly comments back to work group. Motion Passed. Jeff Sheppard - 9.17.2 Exemption of Guide Dollies from design verifications. Can we use the wording that was balloted in Item 6301 to cover guide dollies. Motion by: Jeff Sheppard Second by: no second Motion to: Delete 9.17.3. Motion died.

Motion by: Mark Sibille Second by: Faisal Yousef Motion to: Accept the wording in ISO 13535 section 9.17.2.5 to 9.17.6 and send the guide dolly comments back to work group. Motion Passed.

Larry Wells with NOV was nominated to lead the new work group for guide dollies.

At the June 2009 Conference:

Letter ballot was not processed from 2008 conference. Letter ballot will be initiated and work group will continue to work on resolving the original comments from Ballot ID 1249.

Larry Wells with NOV will lead the new work group. Dewayne Vogt will participate as well. Norm Dyer from the original work group will participate. Original work group members may participate as well and any other interested members.

At The June 2010 Conference

Work Group meeting held Monday June 28, 2010 reviewed the comments to the original 2007 ballot. New wording proposed.

NEW BALLOT ITEM Motion by: Bill Braman Second by: Bob de Pont Motion to: Accept the wording as proposed by the work group and submit to letter ballot. Motion passed. June 2010 Conference Went to Letter Ballot as Ballot ID 2108. Letter Ballot Passed.

This item will be removed from the agenda for 2012

c. Item 5302: Incorporating scope of API RP7L into ISO13534/API8B (See TG2 agenda Item 5202.)

At the June 2005 Conference, the following activity took place: Discussed in TG2 meeting. Tabled pending results of TG2 work group on Item 5202. At the June 2006 Conference: Robert Urbanowksi – As discussed in the TG2 meeting, roll the scope of 7L into the scope of 8B/ISO13534. (Refer to Agenda Item 1301.) Discussed briefly whether or not to roll 7K items into 8C with no resolution. At the June 2007 Conference: Robert Urbanowski – Reported API putting together a comparison to ensure that everything has been included. Draft DIS is still being worked on and has not been sent for ISO approval yet. Mark Sibille – Reported API staff is doing a document compare of the ISO documents vs. the API specifications. ISO 13535 is the priority. Information will be added to circulation as soon as it is available. At the June 2008 Conference: Alf Aker – In 13534, API 7L has formed the basis. Work Group on BOP handling equipment has been added to the proposed revision of 13534.

At the June 2009 Conference:

Ongoing process. No report at this time. At The June 2010 Conference Nothing reported at this time.

At The June 2011 Conference SC8/TG2 liaison, Eric Simon, is investigating this issue and will advise both TG2 and TG3. Alf Aker - 13534 was released last summer as an FDIS. Alf proposes now that we look at the API 8B balloted items and plug them in to the current FDIS document. Alf can integrate these items into the FDIS. Motion by: Alf Aker Second by: Mark Sibille Motion to: to take the proposed text for the FDIS of ISO 13534 and implement the API RP 8B and RP 7L balloted items. Then release the document for the FDIS hearing Motion Passes

d. Item 7301: API 8B Guidance on Top Drive Alignment. Add top drive alignment criteria to the recommended practice. Fatigue

cracking and failures may occur if all drill string rotating components of the top drive system are not in alignment.

New Work Item Proposal submitted by Tom Becker.

Attachment III.

At the June 2007 Conference: Tom Becker – Explanation and presentation of the Attachment III. RP 8B needs to at least notes regarding periodic inspection of alignment as a maintenance issue. Jeff Sheppard – Mis-alignment can be caused by a variety of issues (i.e. derrick shimming, guide track alignment, ibops, main shaft connection, etc.). The top drive manufacturer does not necessarily have control of all of the components. The user also does not have a practical way to determine the true runout. Reluctant to support additional requirements without a practical means to verify the alignment. Bill Braman – NOV recommends a specific tolerances in inches to well center. Craig Weems – Manufactures recommendation has more to do with preservation of the machinery rather than the impact on the tubular connections. Using a pipe as a plumb bomb does not take into account the deviation of the hole and the drill string. Jeff Sheppard – We need to be able to determine the alignment throughout the derrick regardless of the hole. What is the bench mark? Need a work group with input from TG1.

Norm Dyer – Is it possible that the power swivel stem , ibops, etc are not in alignment to each other? Or is this a matter of keeping the whole assembly in line to the well center? This is an age old problem going back to swivel connections to the Kelly. New Work Item Accepted and Work Group developed Chair - Bill Bramen Work Group - Jeff Sheppard, Bob Sheti, Faisal Youseff, suggestion to solicit SC5 drill stem elements, and rep from Maritime Hydraulics. At the June 2008 Conference: Bill Braman – Team met in December 2007 and drafted the document handed out during the meeting. First paragraph is justification for the document. Comments – What is the definition of regular basis for inspection? RP 8B leave this determination up to the manufacturer. -This seems to say that the first signs of misalignment are a crack main shaft, and then you call in the experts. This does not tell anyone how to measure misalignment and determine whether or not the misalignment is critical. There is not preventative measures to verify the alignment prior to cracks. An example is RP 4G guidance on acceptable deflections which gives guidance, but does not allow everything. - Previous inspections show crack in second or third thread that can be found with eddy current inspection. Still no inspection techniques to find fatigue prior to failure. -This document is to be added to RP 8B. There is no statement here to follow manufacturer recommended inspections, but that is covered in RP 8B in other sections. - Add the words “herein RP8B” in solutions section. - There is no guidance on “how careful” an operator needs to be. Should we include some guidance on alignment such as the chart used in other sections. This should also send the user back to the original manufacturer. - At least guidance on who to go to for what issues. Keep this item on the agenda. The work group should continue.

At the June 2009 Conference: Reference proposed wording from Bill Bramen (version 5) Frequency of inspection is still unresolved from last year.

This text will appear in API RP 8B, but it is unclear where (possibly an annex).

Motion by: Norm Dyer Second by: Tom Becker Motion to: Accept the proposed wording as an informative annex to RP 8B Motion modified as below Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Tom Becker Motion to: Accept the proposed wording as an informative annex to RP 8B. Ken Kondo to determine the appropriate section in RP 8B in which to refer to the annex as informative using the word “should”.

Motion Passes Motion by: Mark Sibille Second by: Robert Urbanowski Motion to: Include in the above ballot item, addition of RP 4G in the bibliography of RP 8B. Motion Passes Editorial comment – make current the reference to RP 7G Section 13. The appropriate reference is API Spec 7-2 / ISO 10424-2

June 2010 Conference

Went to Letter Ballot as Ballot ID 2031. Letter ballot is in process on the API website. Voting ends July 30, 2010 Went to Letter Ballot as Ballot ID 2031. Letter Ballot Passed.

This item will be removed from the agenda for 2012

e. Item 7302: Addition of 1250-Ton Load Rating. Note- Some portions of this NWI may over-lap existing Agenda Item 3303.

New Work Item Proposed by Tom Becker. Attachment IV.

At the June 2007 Conference:

This item redesignated as 7302 Tom Becker – Explanation of the New Work Item request.

Suggest Larry Wells and Bob de Pont and work group leaders due to their involvement in 1250 ton design Mark Sibille- Are we talking about changing design safety factor or dvt requirement? Tom Becker – Reducing safety factor is not out of the question, dvt load reductions coupled with finite element analysis is also a possibility. Joern Grotiaerr - Propose to increase the work item up to 1500 ton rating Motion by: Mark Sibille Second by: Tom Becker Motion to: Accept the NWI and establish work group Motion Passed

Work Group Chairs: Bob de Pont & Larry Wells Work Group: Alf Aker, Ron Roling, Kurt Vandervort, Faisel Yousef, Mark Pierce, Tom Becker, & Anthony Mannering.

At the June 2008 Conference:

Leave on the agenda

At the June 2009 Conference: Bob de Pont discussed equipment above 1250 ton. Tools are too highly rated to build test fixture for them.

Bob DuPont to write a proposal based on the work group suggestions. The proposal will be distributed to the original work group for review. Anyone interested in being on Work Group should contact Bob de Pont.

At The June 2010 Conference

Work Group met yesterday Monday June 28, 2010. Bob de Pont proposed wording.

NEW BALLOT ITEM Motion by: Bob dePont Second by: Ron Roling Motion to: Accept the wording as proposed by the work group to submit for letter ballot. Motion passed.

Went to Letter Ballot as Ballot ID 2110. Letter Ballot Passed.

This item will be removed from the agenda for 2012

f. Item 9301: Process Requiring Validation.

At the June 2009 Conference: Minutes from Process Requiring Validation meeting in Houston Texas January 30th, 2009 handed out. TG3 will wait and see the results of TG1 effort with API 4F before taking action on this item. At The June 2010 Conference

Discussion of the proposed wording that was accepted in TG2.

NEW BALLOT ITEM Motion by: Bide Alford Second by: Mark Trevithick Motion to: Accept the proposed wording from the work group for letter ballot. Motion passed. Went to Letter Ballot as Ballot ID 2109. Letter Ballot Passed.

This item will be removed from the agenda for 2012

g. Agreement between API Spec 8C and API Spec 16 on Reference to Spider requirements in API 8C?

At the June 2010 Conference No recollection of this item.

Could this be: Is proof load testing required for riser spiders and gimbals?

Reference in 16F that Riser handling tools will follow the rules of API 8C. This is causing an issue for manufacturers. This is really a SC16 issue not an SC8/TG3 issue. We probably planned for TG2 to liaise with the riser group to discuss this issue. Motion by: Mark Sibille Second by: Tom Becker Motion to: To accept Norm Dyer’s offer to liaise with SC16 to discuss this issue Motion passed. At The June 2011 Conference Norm Dyer has nothing to report at this time, but will continue to pursue this item.

h. Item 9303: Applicability of Specification 8C to Rotary Shouldered Connections.

At the June 2009 Conference: Is there a conflict between API Spec 7 and API Spec 8C with regards to tool joint connections?

Specific issues are torque requirements and safety factors.

Eric Deutsch to develop a new work item for consideration.

Since the June 2009 Meeting Workgroup Meetings Held August 7, 2009 and March 5, 2010.

At The June 2010 Conference Work Group has met a number of times throughout the year including yesterday Monday June 28, 2010. Eric Deutsch presented the work group proposed draft intended to be added to section 9.9.5. Robert Urbanowski offers editorial comments Bob de Pont asks about using the alternative design verification break test to develop a higher rating than determined by calculation. According to 8C alternative design, you would be allowed to rate the tool higher. However, the wording as proposed would eliminate the need for Alternative Design Verification Testing (ADVT), but it does not preclude the use of ADVT.

Possibly, the calculation method may need to be added to section 4 to ensure that we are not disallowing the use of ADVT, or language needs to be added to clarify that ADVT is allowed. Motion by: Mark Sibille Second by: Bob dePont Motion to: Work group to rework this draft to inclu de in section 4 for submittal to SC8 for letter ballot. Motion passed.

Went to Letter Ballot as Ballot ID 2111. Letter Ballot Passed.

This item will be removed from the agenda for 2012

i. Item 0301: Review of API Purchasing Guidelines At The June 2010 Conference Mike Kubinski volunteered to review this guideline and discussed the requirements. The purchaser can follow the SR’s, but we don’t really see much else being specified. Norm - Purchasing guidelines that are product specific could outline some form of requirements that the buyer and seller should agree to, what the buyer is responsible to give the seller, and what the seller is responsible to give the buyer. Robert – possible to add to the SRs, the purchaser may specify third party. Some purchasers follow the API spec directly without understanding what the SRs require. What is the real problem that we are trying to address? To ensure that the current purchasing guidelines are not obsolete. Possibly as a checklist a purchaser can use to make sure they are ordering what they want to receive. Mike would like to work with Norm. Ask for volunteers, none given.

Work Group: Mike Kubinski, Norm Dyer

After the June 2010 Conference - Discussions by Mike Kubinski regarding Purchasing Guidelines.

At The June 2011 Conference Mike Kubinski and Norm Dyer have a clearer scope from the TG2 meeting and will pursue the same approach on the TG3 purchasing guidelines. This will be an ongoing work item

j. Item 0302 Inclusion of Casing running tools in 8C (Faisal Yousef)

Motion by:Tom Becker Second by: Eric Deutsch Motion to: Put together a work group and create a new work item to look at adding casing running tools in the scope of covered equipment in API 8C Motion passed.

This will be submitted to SC8 as a new work item. Work Group: Bob de Pont, Ron Roeling, Eric Deutsch, Dave Mason, Faisal Yousef (Chair), Casimir Sulima, Dick Murray Work group to decide on chair.

At The June 2011 Conference Faisal Yousef and the work group have met several times in the past year and have produced a draft that was presented to the work group. Faisal presented the draft with the hopes of moving to ballot. Grammatical change to clarify the production load test with mandrel requirements “as if the gripper components were installed” Should the term top drive be changed to power swivel? (this may be taken in up in new business) The scope is narrow currently to use with a top drive/power swivel. Should it be expanded to attach to a swivel? Currently, if you are not using this for torquing then it doesn’t fall under this specification. Does a tool that doesn’t torque already fall under 8C for elevators? DVT presented – will this generate the maximum stress in the tool? Current draft would come up with the axial stress and the torque induced stress independently. Then these stress would be superimposed to come up with the combined stress. Motion by: Bob dePont Second by: Motion to: File a complaint with the hotel staff due to the environment of the meeting room. It is impossible to hear what is being discussed across the room. Motion forgotten Can we just share the microphone? Mark Sibille – re-presents the proposed DVT. The current wording states that you must do a axial test with no torsion and you must do a torsion test with no axial. This does not prevent the

manufacturer from testing for the load combination. The intent was to give the users a base line test to ensure the integrity of the equipment. Can the testing be done at in the same test? Add a line that says, “Both axial and torsion tests may be performed simultaneously.” Robert Urbanowski agrees that top drive needs to change to power swivel. Top drives are not currently in the scope of 8C. This may come up in new business. Mark Sibille notes that the term top drive was not originally used due to it being a brand name rather than a generic industry term. Now the term power swivel is seen as a more basic equipment. At this time, the term will be modified from “top d rive” to “power swivel or top drive”… Bob dePont- this should be said to hang off from a threaded connection.

NEW BALLOT ITEM Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Bob dePont Motion to: To request the work group to finish revision to the proposed draft and send to API for letter ballot. Motion Passes …..

k. Item 0303 Use of Chains in Retaining Rotary Hose (Faisal Yousef)

9.9.6 – Safety alert from IADC not to use a chain for retention device for the rotary hose. We should rather use a cable. This is an issue for use, inspection, welding, etc. Does this also apply to TG2 and hose retention in general. Maybe this should be a joint committee. Motion by:Faisal Yousef Second by: Robert Urbanowski Motion to: Change 9.9.6 wording from chain to wire rope Motion passed.

This will be submitted to SC8 as a new work item.

Work Group: Faisal Yousef (Chair), Eric Deutsch, Robert Urbanowski, Bill Braman, Paul Meade-Cliff, Dennis Fetter as a rope consultant, Randy Pyrch

Work Group to select chair prior to SC8 meeting

After the June 2010 Conference - April 15, 2011 Work Group meeting held in Houston and developed proposed wording for API 8C. - Work Group Meeting 2:45 P.M. to 3:30 P.M. Monday June 27, 2011 Standards Conference. Agenda: Item 0303 - Use of chain in retaining rotary hose s afety clamp - Discuss the proposed text that was put together by the work group to see if it is ready for balloting as presented.

At The June 2011 Conference Faisal Yousef presented the proposed wording from the work group. Motion by: Randy Pyrch Second by: Bill Braman Motion to: Accept the proposed wording and submit it to API for letter ballot Motion Passed

l. Item 0304 Clarification of API 8C/7K Demarcation At Rotary

Hose (Randy Pyrch) Where do 8C and 7K separate. The current figure shows the union and piping as 7K, but they are not really covered there. Pressure containing pipe moving with the top drive is an 8C item. This could be as simple as a note on the figure specifying that any hard piping is 8C Motion by: Faisal Yousef Second by: Eric Deutsch Motion to: Accept this as a new work item Motion passed. This will be submitted to SC8 as a new work item.

Work Group: Tom Becker, Bill Braman, Randy Pyrch, Eric Deutsch, Faisal Yousef

After the June 2010 Conference - E-Mail discussions on proposal. - May 5, 2011 Work Group meeting held in Houston to discuss proposal. - Work Group Meeting 9:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. Monday June 27, 2011 Standards Conference. Agenda: Item 0304 – Clarification of 8C/7K Demarcation at R otary Hose Determine what elements of the drilling fluid path components should be included in the scope of 8C. Review and determine what other elements of 8C (Design, Material Requirements, Inspection, Testing, etc) apply to these components.

At The June 2011 Conference Randy Pyrch presented the proposed wording from the work group. Question from Norm Dyer – Why are we exempting parts from testing? Randy Pyrch – 8C did not originally include any piping, does impact testing of these items add value? Norm – the items are subject to vibration and impact and need ductility. DNV would not certify this without the impact properties. Faisal Yousef – how do you check the pipe and gooseneck weld. Norm – the WPS would need a PQR with CVNs. For threaded connections the materials need CVN testing and the threaded connection would need to have the appropriate strength (but this size threaded connection would not be accepted) Currently, API 8C only says that all piping elements should adhere to a know standard. Wash Pipes are exempt from CVNs. 8.4.5 currently exempts fittings from CVNs.

NEW BALLOT ITEM Motion by: Bob dePont Second by: Faisal Yousef Motion to: Accept the proposed wording and submit it to API for letter ballot Motion Passes …..

m. Item 0305 Hydraulic Cylinder specifications in hoisting and pull down applications (Richard Ackerman)

This has been discussed in TG1 and TG2 also. Maybe we need a generalized cylinder specification.

We specifically excluded hydraulic power transmission in 7K. Maybe we need to look at this specifically as how each cylinder application is affected by the specification. This should probably start with TG3 and work back to TG2. Motion by: Richard Ackerman Second by: Chris Ponzi Motion to: Accept a new work item to develop hydraulic cylinder design standards in hoisting and pull down applications. Motion passed. This will be submitted to SC8 as a new work item. Work Group: Richard Ackerman (Chair), Chris Ponzi, Mark Sibille, Henk Diepeveen, Bob Donnally, Norm Dyer, Shawn Firenza, Kurt Vandervort, Paul Meade-Cliff, Mark Trevithick, Richard Munroe (Orange, CA).

After the June 2010 Conference - February 24, 2011 Work Group conference call meeting discussing possible hydraulic cylinder proposal. - March 24, 2011 Work Group conference call to further discussion on a proposal. - April 28 Work Group Conference Call. - May 26, 2011 Work Group Conference Call. - E-Mail discussions on Hydraulic Cylinder addition to API 8C. - Work Group Meeting 3:30 P.M. to 5:30 P.M. June 27, 2011 Standards Conference. Agenda: Item 0305 Hydraulic Cylinders The agenda for this workgroup is to formalize the scope of hydraulic cylinders applicable to API-8C, define the appropriate design requirements, factors of safety, testing requirements, traceability requirements, and related requirements. A draft generated through monthly meetings will be presented for review and revisions. The goal of the Work Group meeting will result in a draft that can be submitted in the Task Group meeting for formal vote and possible Letter Ballot.”

At The June 2011 Conference Richard Ackerman presented the draft from the work group. The intent is to get some guidelines in place to help manufacturers understand the basic requirements for these cylinders. This is a large issue, and the work group really just wants to get the basics in place. The current wording needs further work before it is ready for ballot. Large issue from the work group is whether these cylinders should be included in the scope of covered equipment as a monogrammable product. It is believed that no cylinder manufacturers would pursue API licenses.

Robert Urbanowski – Monogramming is an optional issue, so you don’t really need to exclude it unless there is a specific reason. This may be included in an informative appendix. This is similar to the bolt issue that is being addressed by SC20. Motion by: Richard Ackerman Second by: Motion to: Dismiss the immediate requirement for making cylinders monogrammable products under API 8C. Motion Withdrawn Is this going to move to TG2 or stay in TG3? Rober Motion by: Richard Ackerman Second by: Mark Sibille Motion to: Chair of TG3 to send the proposed wording out to the entire SC8 roster to solicit feedback Motion Passes

n. Item 0306 Hoisting Tool contact radii (Mike Kubinski) The hook in many applications is not used. So the travelling block is mated to the top drive. This does not always mate well due to differences in contact radii. This cannot be solved in the spec, but it may need to be in the purchasing guideline. Maybe this belongs in an SR to specify a different radii to call out the hook radii for the travelling block becket. Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Tom Becker Motion to: Accept this as a new work item. Motion passed.

This will be submitted to SC8 as a new work item. Work Group: Mike Kubinski (Chair), Paul Boeckman, B ill Braman, Neill Whiteley After the June 2010 Conference - October 29, 2010 Work group meeting in Houston discuss proposed wording and way forward. - E-Mail discussions on existing table and possible wording. - Work Group Meeting 1:00 P.M. to 2:00 P.M. Monday June 27, 2011 Stands Conference.

Agenda: Item 0306 Hoisting Tool Contact Radii Review and Discuss proposed wording. At The June 2011 Conference Mike Kubisnki presented the current wording from the work group. Add into fig. 7 the representation of the power swivel mating directly to the block becket. Contact radii will be added to both swivels and power swivels. Marking will be included as well to denote which hook or traveling block series it is intended to match. Note: the term top drive will be modified to be power swivel Adrian Lis can you have a combination that meets radii requirements for both hook and block? Randy Pyrch – Yes, do we need to specify they can be marked as both Robert Urbanowski – Clarify this by noting that multiple markings may be applied. Several clarifications to the text were proposed and implemented

NEW BALLOT ITEM Motion by: Robert Urbanowski Second by: Mark Sibille Motion to: Request the work group to finish the revision to the proposed draft, accept the revised draft, and submit to SC 8 for letter ballot. Motion Passes

5. New Business a. Faisal Yousef – request to include the term top drive in API 8C

Motion by: Faisal Yousef Second by: Eric Motion to: Include top drive in the scope of covered equipment in API 8C Motion Passes Work Group Chair – Faisal Yousef Work Group – Eric, Bill Braman, Kashmir, John

b. Paul Boeckman – Can we change the marking requirements for sheaves to allow stamping in the web instead of the rim. Norm – can it be near the outer rim.

NEW BALLOT ITEM Motion by: Paul Boeckman Second by: Randy Pyrch Motion to: Modify the wording in section 9.2.6 to “These markings shall be cast or stamped on the side of the outer rim or on the web near the outer rim of the sheave.” Motion Passes

Editorial comment – change the example from AB CO to some other example that is not comparable to a current manufacturer.

c. Ken Kondo – Discussion to withdraw API 8A

This was intended to be brought to TG3 by Tom Becker. Ken has rasied this issue in his place.

Are there companies that only have 8A? Several companies still have and use API 8A. They will need notification of the letter ballot to raise comments or vote negative.

Cleon Shelton – the well servicing group uses API 8A due to the onerous nature of 8C. The well servicing group can not afford the added requirements. Mark Sibille and Robert Urbanowski discussed the nature of 8A and the history of trying to revise or withdraw this standard.

NEW BALLOT ITEM

Motion by: Bob dePont Second by: Mark Pierce Motion to: Withdraw API 8A Motion Passes (16 to 5) This will go to letter ballot. TG3 will request API office to notify all license holders of API 8A.

d. Mike Yoakum – Can API clarify the depth of groove requirement for sheaves? Currently, the specification gives a range, but does not specify an allowable. Robert Urbanowski – tolerance for new sheaves are given by API Mike - this request is to address the field inspection criteria

Mark Sibille – This needs to be addressed in API RP 8B which would currently tell you to go back to the manufacturer for the wear allowances.

6. Adjournment

Motion by: Bide Alford Second by: Not Required Motion to: Adjourn Motion Passes