1. API 2016 Exploration & Production Standards
Conference on Oilfield Equipment and Materials,
June 27 - July 1
API 10D Re-Write Work Group, Update for Pre-Conference
Washington DC
June, 2016

2. Work group on Bow Spring Centralizers (SC-10D) June, 2016: Summer Conference – Washington DC
Work Group Charge
Review and update API Spec 10D to include performance testing requirements for centralizers that are to be used in applications where they are run through restrictions that are smaller than the hole size in which they are to be set. 2

3. WG 10D Roster 24 active members/alts 3 John E. Hebert - Blackhawk ST
130 Equity Blvd.
Houma, La
Chris Jordan - Blackhawk ST
11936 Brittmoore Park Dr.
Houston, Tx 77041
Matthew Goodine – BP
501 Westlake Blvd.
Houston, Tx 77079
Brent Lirette – Antelope Oil Tools Co.
K.K. (Karl) LaFleur - LaFleur Properties L.C 3

4. WG 10D Roster (p2.) 4 Alfredo Sanchez – Top-Co
David Laurel – Baker Hughes
Philip Dufrene – Weatherford
179 Weatherford Dr.
Houma, La 70395
Max Rodrigue – Weatherford 4

5. WG 10D Roster (p3.) 5 Charles C Buford Jr– Baker Hughes
Hank Rogers – CE consulting
Lonnie Helms– Halliburton
Keith Harless - Halliburton
David Poole – Chevron
George Fuller – Shell
Wesley Johnson – Downhole Products
Downhole Products
4140 World Houston Parkway
Suite 160
Houston TX 77032
Cell
John McCormick – PVI software 5

6. WG 10D Roster (p4.) 6 Andy Boulcott – CenTek Group
Paul Joyce – CenTek Group
Brandon Bourg – Weatherford
Graham Hay – Downhole Products
Michael Szymanski – Shell
Forest Parker – Weatherford
Ivan Barannikow – Weatherford 6

7. Work group on Bow Spring Centralizers (SC-10D) June 2016: Summer Conference – Washington DC
Work Group Status
Last met as a WG on Jan 19th, 2016 at the Winter meetings to further the document:
Minutes of the meeting published and read before the members in attendance at the closing session.
Since the January meeting, we have not been able to meet as a group due to the hardships brought on by the Industry downturn.
However, we have strived to make individual comments on the document and plan to circulate them amongst the work group prior to the Summer meetings in Washington DC.
The WG requested and received Audit findings from Ivan Pinto, which we will pay particular attention to in reviewing the sections that generate the most findings. 7

8. Work group on Bow Spring Centralizers (SC-10D) June 2016: Summer Conference – Washington DC
Work Group Status
Also since the January meetings, all archive files including iterations of the working document and meeting minutes as well as conference presentations have been uploaded to the API SharePoint site (per year folder structure). 8

9. Work group on Bow Spring Centralizers (SC-10D) June, 2016: Summer Conference – Washington DC
Work Group Status
Collect comments on current document in preparation for Summer Conference.
Other outstanding issues involve the whether or not to allow range monograming for Standard Application centralizers?
Work with programmers to zero in on optimal format to report centralizer curves for use as input to spacing programs.
General formatting and document clean up and as we get closer to a final version. 9

10. 10D Work Group – Alfredo’s comments
Is the 15% variation on coefficient of variation and re-test results (sections and respectively) final or do we need further discussion? 
In at least one of our previous meetings, we discussed the differences between running the centralizers through the restriction in a staged step-down procedure (from uncompressed OD to intermediate ID to restriction ID) versus a single step procedure (uncompressed OD directly into restriction ID):
We have not yet defined this in the most recent draft document; on the contrary, most probable interpretation would be a single step procedure. 
If the document will allow a staged step-down procedure, we will have to define the dimensions of the intermediate diameter, transition zone, and reporting requirements. 10

11. 10D Work Group – Alfredo’s comments (continued)
We changed the number of times the bows should be flexed before measuring restoring force from 12 to 3 (6.3.3 and ).  Is this final? 
I do not recall the original reasoning for flexing the bows 12 times (although I have some comments/ideas); we should at least discuss this again.
I disagree with not having to flex the bows when the difference between the minimum restriction ID and the open hole diameter is less than 1”.  I think this condition would be similar to a standard application, for which we are still requiring to flex the bows three times.  11

12. 10D Work Group – Alfredo’s comments (continued)
For Published Data: 
I think we agreed we were going to report the restoring force five specific stand-off values, in addition to 67%.  Need to define how many points (is it only five or more?) and add it to the report format 
Shouldn’t the report include restoring force in the previous casing ID after passing through the minimum restriction? 
For under-reamed cases, will there be a minimum amount of time that the centralizers will need to be left inside the restriction before conducting the restoring force test? 
Define procedure for monograming for hole size range [I am working on this and will have it a proposal ready for to discuss in our next meeting] 12

13. 10D Work Group – Alfredo’s comments (continued)
review equations to calculate min restoring force; for smaller casing sizes we should assume horizontal inclination plus a safety factor.
Define axial position of stop collar in restoring force test
Discuss procedure to calculate stand-off ratio 13

14. 10D Work Group – Andy’s comments
5.4.2 The inner diameter of the outer pipe is specified but this is only relevant to the standard set up. Better to state that the ID is specified according to the type of test.
For clarity specify that each bow should be flexed to 3 times the Minimum restoring force at 67 % standoff ratio as specified in Table A1.
6 & 7. Need to specify what “deflection” is. Deflection = the distance between the measured position of the casing and the position of the casing when it is at 100% stand-off ratio. i.e. deflection is zero when the casing is at 100% stand-off ratio.
No flexing of bows for this situation makes no sense. A centralizer is subjected to significant flexing downhole in this scenario just as it is in other scenarios. Flexing should be conducted in an outer pipe equal to the hole size for the application.
7.3 / There is no mention of recording the OD of the centraliser. This should be measured immediately on completion of the RF test.
If flexing is not required for some scenarios, then a line needs to be added specifying if bows were flexed but this is a poor solution – there should be a requirement to do it.
The minimum restriction is at the choice of the manufacturer which could give a means to enhance the performance, especially if there is no requirement to flex the bows. Is it worth having a standard of minimum restrictions such that the centralizer can be reported as, say, Type 1 – manufacturer specified restriction, and Type 2, standard restriction.
Standard could be: 14

15. 10D Work Group – Andy’s comments (continued)
Centralizer
Minimum restriction
Casing & wt.
16" 17
18, xxlb/ft
13.3/8”
15.01
16, 84lb/ft
11.3/4”
12.347
13.3/8, 72lb/ft
10"
10.772
11.3/4, 60lb/ft
9.5/8”
11.772 15

16. Questions? API 2016 Exploration & Production Standards
Conference on Oilfield Equipment and Materials
June 27, 2016
Washington DC
Questions?