iso/tc 67 / sc 4 api for ansimycommittees.api.org/standards/isotc67sc4/ndocs/2007/n388.pdfed asme...

FORM 8 A (ISO) FORMULAIRE 8 A (ISO) of/de 41 Version 2001-07

EXPLANATORY REPORT RAPPORT EXPLICATIF

ISO/DIS 17824

TC 67/SC 4 N388

ISO/TC 67 / SC 4 Secretariat API for ANSI

This form should be sent to the ISO Central Secretariat, together with the English and French versions of the committee draft, by the secretariat of the technical committee or subcommittee concerned.

Ce formulaire doit être envoyé au Secrétariat central de l'ISO en même temps que les versions anglaise et française du projet de comité, par le secrétariat du comité technique ou du sous-comité concerné.

The accompanying document is submitted for circulation to member body vote as a DIS, following consensus obtained from the P-members of the committee.

Le document ci-joint est soumis, pour diffusion comme DIS, au vote comité membre, suite au consensus des membres (P) du comité obtenu.

on

at the meeting of à la réunion du

TC / SC see resolutionvoir résolution

No.no

in dans le

document

by postal ballot initiated on par un vote par correspondance démarré le

2007-04-26

Number Countries

P-members in favour: Membres (P) approuvant le projet:

8 Argentina (IRAM), Brazil (ABNT), France (AFNOR), Germany (DIN), Italy (UNI), Korea, Republic of (KATS), UK (BSI), United States (ANSI)

P-members voting against: Membres (P) désapprouvant:

1 The Netherlands (NEN)

P-members abstaining: Membres (P) s'abstenant:

1 Canada (SCC)

P-members who did not vote: Membres (P) n'ayant pas voté:

4 China (SAC), Indonesia (BSN), Norway (SN), Poland (PKN)

Remarks/Remarques

See Attached for comments.

I hereby confirm that this draft meets the requirements of part 2 of the ISO/IEC Directives Je confirme que ce projet satisfait aux prescriptions de la partie 2 des Directives ISO/CEI

Date

2007-08-01

Name and signature of the secretary Nom et signature du secrétaire

Andy Radford

Template for comments and secretariat observations Date: 2007-07-26 Document: ISO CD 17824 1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1

Clause No./ Subclause No./

Annex (e.g. 3.1)

Paragraph/ Figure/Table/N

ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2

Comment (justification for change) by the MB Proposed change by the MB Secretariat observations on each comment submitted

1 MB = Member body (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial NOTE Columns 1, 2, 4, 5 are compulsory.

page 1 of 41 ISO electronic balloting commenting template/version 2001-10

BR Annex D – Special

Mechanical Strength

Tests

D.5.2 2) te - Petrobras Sand Control Community does not consider appropriate the Screen Push-Off Cement Test described in the D.5.2.2 and D.5.3.

Include in the next review process an appropriate Specification for Premium Screen Shroud Failure Test (push-off test without cement utilization).

BR Annex D – Special

Mechanical Strength

Tests

D.5.3 te - Petrobras Sand Control Community does not consider appropriate the Screen Push-Off Cement Test described in the D.5.2.2 and D.5.3.

Include in the next review process an appropriate Specification for Premium Screen Shroud Failure Test (push-off test without cement utilization).

FR title ed Change French title from:

Industries du pétrole et du gaz naturel -- Equipement de fond de trou -- Crépin de contrôle du sable to: Industries du pétrole et du gaz naturel - Equipement de fond de puits - Tamis de contrôle du sable

Modify to: Industries du pétrole et du gaz naturel - Equipement de fond de puits - Tamis de contrôle du sable

IT 2 ed Normative references are not in alphabetic order. To put in alphabetic order.

IT 2 ed Numbers of ISO 17078 series standards are not correct. Should be ISO 17078-1, 2, 3.

IT 2 ed ASME BPVC-IID title is not correct. Should be “Boiler and pressure vessel code -

Section II: Materials - Part D: Properties”.

IT 2 ed ASME BPVC-VIII-1 title is not correct. Should be “Boiler and pressure vessel code -

Section VIII: Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels - Division 1”.

IT 2 ed ISO 6507-1 title is not correct. Should be “Metallic materials - Vickers hardness

test - Part 1: Test method”

IT 2 ed ISO 6508 title is not correct. Should be “Metallic materials - Rockwell hardness

test - Part 1: Test method (scales A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, N, T)”.

IT 2 ed ASTM E140 title is not correct. Should be “Standard hardness conversion tables

for metals relationship among Brinell hardness, Vickers hardness, Rockwell hardness, superficial hardness, Knoop hardness, and scleroscope hardness.”


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




IT 2 te ISO standards shall not have any normative references to

quality management systems (ISO 9000 series). Such referenced documents may be listed in a bibliography.

IT 2 ed NCSL Z540-1 title is not correct. Should be “General requirements for calibration

laboratories and measuring and test equipment.”

NL This is the first committee draft to be circulated for

international comment. The document is quite immature at this stage and needs substantial work from both technical and editorial perspectives. The document is full of grammatical errors, inconsistencies, incorrect terminology, and technical issues. At least one thorough committee draft commentary and revision cycle will be needed to identify and correct all of these issues before DIS status can be considered.

NL Entire Doc te Terminology is not consistent throughout the whole

document., leading to some confusing statements. Before making other changes or revisions, all technical terms should be identified, defined, agreed to by the committee, and consistently applied in the document. Eliminate duplicate terms that add confusion.

NL Entire Doc ed Nouns used in clause headings vary in the use of singular

vs. plural nouns. Stick with singular nouns. Change all plurals to singulars.

NL Entire Doc ed There is extensive incorrect use of commas throughout

the document. Run a comma check throughout and make corrections.

NL Entire Doc ed English/US units are used in lieu of SI units in multiple

places. Conform to ISO format requirements to use SI units.

NL Entire Doc ed All of the length and some other values are convenient

whole numbers when expressed in English units but are odd ball numbers when expressed in SI units. Since some of these values are arbitrary (e.g., test sample lengths), does it matter which system is given favor? E.g., use 1 m (3.28 ft) long samples instead of 3 ft (0.914 m) long samples.

Adjust sample lengths to accommodate preferred units with round figures as is customary in ISO.

NL Entire Doc te The term “coupling” is incorrectly used throughout this

document to refer to all “box connections”. A coupling is only one type of box connection, the other begin an upset

Replace “coupling” throughout the document as with the words “box connection” or “box connection upset” as appropriate. In some cases


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




integral joint. the words “coupling or box connection upset” may be appropriate in place of “coupling.”

NL Entire Doc ed Many subclause titles contain unnecessary redundancy,

repeating words used in the lead clause. Shorten all of the subclause titles when the key words are already stated in the primary clause title.

NL Entire Doc ed There is an inconsistent use of an abbreviated sentence

format (e.g., leaving off the word “the” to precede the subject noun) and use of incomplete sentences.

Ensure that grammer is consistent and in compliance with ISO requirements. A good English teacher could find all of these if the grammer/spell check doesn’t.

NL Entire Doc te All of the test procedures fail to address important

information and considerations that are typical of industry standardized tests. E.g., how many tests are needed to provide a valid result; what about invalid tests or tests that yield unusually high or low results; etc. Without this provision this allows manufacturers to simply discard test results they don’t like without accountability.

Testing experts need to be brought in to explain what procedures are required to ensure that the tests conducted and the data reported by manufacturers have integrity that can be reliable. Testing of a single sample cannot possibly be a “standard” in all of these cases. At best it is just an informative annex.

NL Entire Doc & Introduction

Par 4

ed Other standards frequently use the terms “as specified by the purchase order or purchase agreement” (104 times in API 5CT). This is largely lacking from this document. The disclaimer in paragraph 4 of the Introduction addresses this to some degree. But it may be appropriate to insert this phrase in certain places.

A review of this issue should be made to determine how to treat this matter in a consistent way throughout this document.

NL Introduction Par 1, Sen 2 ed Grammer inconsistency with the preposition “in” and the

list terms in the list. Replace “in” with “regarding. “

NL Introduction Par3, Sen 2 ed This document should not include vendor specific

“product illustrations”. A better word for “possible” is “alternative.”

Change “product Illustrations and possible….” to “generic illustrations and alternative…..”

NL Introduction Par 4, Sen 3 & 4

Te This is superfluous information that imposes (via the word “should”) unnecessary requirements that are outside of the scope of this document.. “Alternative equipment or solutions” are outside the scope.

Delete these two sentences.

NL 1 Scope Par 2 te Need to further clarify the Scope. Add: “Tubulars, connections and material selection

and specification are also outside of the scope of this document.”


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




NL 1 Scope Par 2, Sen 2 te Need to further clarify the Scope. Add “nipples” to the list of features that are not

included.

NL 1 Scope Par 2, Sen 2 te Scope should include filtration performance critiera. Add specific procedures by which to measure

filtration performance and to label the product performance rating.

NL 3.1 ed Word selection Replace “from” with “through”

NL 3.2 ed Word selection. “Sand screen assembly” is used here;

other terms are used elsewhere for the same thing. “Coupling” is an incorrect term. See earlier comment.

Stick with one well defined term. Replace the term “coupling” as noted in earlier comment.

NL 3.2 te This definition is not clear. Is the box handling length the

same as the Box Blank Length depicted in Figure F.4 (Page 40)? The definition of “…measured between the coupling…” is not clear. From which ends of the coupling does this definition refer to?

Suggest that this definition be clarified and make use of Figure F.4 or F.5.

NL 3.3 ed Word selection. “Sand control screen” is used here; Is

this different than a “Sand screen assembly?” Stick with one well defined term.

NL 3.4 ed Style: “components” is plural. There are numerous

similar errors throughout the document. Decide on singular or plural for all terms consistently throughout.

NL 3.4 ed Lacks specificity Replace with: “an individual part of a sand screen

assembly”

NL 3.5 te Unclear. The term “design principles” seems very broad.

Is this the right term? Consider replacing with “design criteria”

NL 3.5 te Unclear. The term “design stress levels” is in appropriate.

Stress levels are a result of specific applied stresses that are unique to each well.

Replace with: “design stress limits”. This term pertains to the design limits of the product which depend on how the product is designed and manufactured.

NL 3.6 te This is unclear. In the ISO/API document for tubulars, the

drift ID for most tubulars = nominal ID – 0.125”. It is not a dimension of the pipe, but rather a guarantee of a clearance. Also, a drift tool must be defined or the number is not reliable since length of the tool impacts the number.

A simpler approach would be to use the term “Maximum OD” defined as “the largest OD at any point along the length of a screen assembly including tubular connections and accessory equipment such as centralizers.”


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




NL 3.7 te This terminology and the one in 3.8 create confusion.

The term “surface wire” is not defined or used elsewhere in this document. This suggests that use of this “surface wire” term should be avoided for the sake of clarity.

Replace with this simpler definition to apply to all screens using any direct wrapping process: “ any sand screen in which the screen is manufactured to provide direct contact and structural support circumferentially to the ID of the entire length of each screen jacket”

NL 3.8 te The definition and term are inconsistent. The word “wrap”

in the term “direct wrap prepack screen” implies that it has to be a “wire wrapped” screen. It’s not necessary to two terms to address the direct wrap manufacturing process.

Delete this term altogether. The above definition should apply to all types.

NL 3.9 ed Use singular noun. Devices may be incorporated. Revise to read: “downhole sensor device which

may be incorporated……”. Or eliminate this term altogether since this is beyond the scope.

NL 3.10 te Definition is not complete Change definition to : “component used in metal

mesh screens to provide structural support and/or to facilitate flow between the basepipe perforations and outer mesh layer(s)”

NL 3.11 te The term ‘”filter OD” is not a dominant term used by

industry in referring to sand screens. Replace with the term “screen OD”. Define as follows: “design OD of the screen jacket.”

NL 3.12 te The term ‘”filter length” is not a dominant term used by

industry in referring to sand screens. Replace with the term “jacket length” or “screen jacket length”. The definition should be as follows: “the axial length from end to end of the screen jacket, including any end rings.”

NL 3.13 te This definition is incorrect. This defines only one type of

fluid loss control pill. Suggest pick another term or leave it off the list. One possibility is “solids laden fluid loss pill.”

NL 3.14 te This term is unnecessary since it is outside the scope of

this standard. Delete this term. But if it is left in then it must be similar to 3.29 since both devices have the same function. Revise to read: “device which may be incorporated……”

NL 3.15 te There’s different levels of traceability. A more thorough

definition should be used. A good QC manual probably has the best definition.

Suggested revision: “Traceability – the capability, to trace the history of a component or assembly back to its origin or to some other stage of manufacturing. The initiating point is typically a


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




job lot, a heat, a work order, a purchase order, etc.” Traceability is accomplished by marking, tagging or labelling the component or assembly with appropriate tracking information.”

NL 3.16 te Correct this definition. It needs to reflect correct

terminology i.e., “make up loss” and the fact that there are two different types of connections (coupling vs. integral joint) and the fact that the coupling has to be fully bucked on. “Make up loss” data is available for all threads. Note - The “start of the pin thread” as currently worded is actually the end of the pin thread in the threading process.

Replace with: “axial distance measured from end to end of a screen joint less the connection makeup loss. The joint must have a pin connection on one end and a fully bucked-on coupling or an integral joint box on the other end.”

NL 3.16 ed Should this “make up” or “makeup,” i.e., two words or one

word. Note, Figures F.4 and F.5 (Page 40) use “makeup” as a single word. Also, refers Figures F.4 and F.5 (Page 40).

Suggest using “make up” or “makeup” consistently in the entire document to avoid confusion.

NL 3.17 te Simplify and clarify this. The purpose of the OAL is to

know the maximum length for shipping/handling and in some cases, billing, purposes. It is independent of the presence or lack of couplings or threads on the basepipe ends.

Replace with: “axial distance measured from end to end of a screen joint.”

NL 3.17 ed Should this be “over all” or “overall,” i.e., two words or one

word. Note, Figures F.4 and F.5 (Page 40) use “overall” as a single word. Also, refers Figures F.4 and F.5 (Page 40).

Suggest using “over all” or “overall” consistently in the entire document to avoid confusion.

NL 3.18 te This is not a fully inclusive definition of current industry

metal mesh products. Filtration is just one function of the mesh layers. Some are for filtration; some serve other purposes.

Replace with: “the component of a metal mesh screen consisting of one or more layers of metal fabric designed to filter solids, provide structural support and/or distribute flow. Metal mesh may be made in a variety of ways and patterns and may involve alternative binding technologies to unite multiple layers and/or incorporate other components such as metal fibers or powder. Metal fabric, metal cloth, and wire cloth are alternative terms used by industry to describe metal mesh. “


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




NL 3.19 te Objection to the wording. A sand control screen can

consist of several things. When using the word “consists” it implies a list will follow of all that is included. Note – Baker has Slimpack and Excluder. These screens are hybrids in that they use both wire wrapped jackets and mesh. In those cases you have to call those products both a wire wrap screen and a metal mesh screen.

Replace with: “any sand control screen that utilizes at least one layer of metal mesh in its design”

NL 3.20 te Definition needs to link up with the fact that it is related to

a design tolerance and is used for quality control. It is not really the minimum gauge unless you are trying to nail the exact size of the slot to the nearest gauge. We generally don’t ever do that .

Replace with: “a feeler gauge size that is used for quality control purposes to prove that the width of a wire wrap screen slot is within the maximum specified design tolerance. Typically a no go gauge is one gauge larger than the maximum specified design tolerance, and hence will “not go” into the slot. Should the gauge freely enter the slot, then a manufacturing reject is noted.

NL 3.21 te Clarify Insert: “OD of the” between “the” and “basepipe”

NL 3.21 te To avoid confusion with the definition of “pin blank

length,” referencing this definition of “pin handling length” to the drawings in Figures F.4 and F.5 would be very helpful.

Suggest adding the “Pin handling length” in Figures F.4 and F.5 to help clarify the definition of “Pin handling length.”

NL 3.22 te It is important that this definition be linked to the rating of

wire mesh screens. This definition could elaborate further on the shortcomings of measuring the pore size. I’ve chosen to keep it simple here.

Replace with: “a term used to define the nominal filtration rating of a wire mesh screen; typically expressed in microns.”

NL 3.23 te The most important point about a prepack screen is the

prepack media. Given that, it is unnecessary to identify what type of screens the inner and outer jacket are unless you want to limit the definition. “Normally” is not a good word to use as it implies that everything else is “abnormal.” Better to use “typically” or “frequently” or “commonly”.

Replace with: “prepack screen sand control screen consisting of two concentric screen jackets with the annulus in between being tightly and completely “prepacked” with a sized distribution of sand or synthetic proppant. The sand or proppant may be coated with a binding agent or resin to prevent particle movement.”

NL 3.24 te This term is not the dominant term I’ve heard. “Shroud” is

what seems to be the common term. “Filtration metal Replace with: “shroud perforated cylindrical component typically used as


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




mesh” is not consistent terminology with the rest of this document.

the outermost concentric layer of a metal mesh screen to provide protection from mechanical damage during handling and installation.”

NL 3.25 te Improper terminology. “Characteristics” typically refers to

behaviour or visible appearance. There are several key aspects missing in this definition.

Replace with: “an individual who’s skills, training, experience, credentials, and/or performance meet or exceed a specified minimum competency level required for a specific task or set of tasks.”

NL 3.26 te This definition needs to provide a little more depth to tie in

other terms in this document. Replace with: “mechanical filtration device designed to retain formation sand and/or gravel pack sand or synthetic proppant. Also referred to as a screen or a screen assembly. At a minimum a screen typically consists of one or more screen jackets mounted over a perforated basepipe and one or more centralizers, with connections on both ends of the basepipe. When two jackets are used it is common practice to mount a centralizer between them.”

NL 3.27 te A jacket does not have to use end rings, so this definition

is incorrect. It is not necessary to go into the details of all the different types of jacket.

Replace with: “the component of a sand control screen that filters solid particles from the flow stream. Jackets typically are made of wire mesh or shaped wire. A screen may have one or more jackets. A jacket may include an end ring attached to each end to mate the jacket to the basepipe.

NL 3.28 te Claify what determines the screen size. It’s the same as

the nominal OD of the basepipe. Replace with: “same as the nominal OD designation of the basepipe”.

NL 3.29 te This term is unnecessary since it is outside the scope of

this standard. Delete the term and definition. But if it is left in and 3.14 is left in, then need to use a similar definition since both have the same function.

NL 3.30 te This is essentially the same as 3.15. Suggest just use one term “Traceability” and one

definition as recommended in the revision to 3.15.

NL 3.31 te Since this is beyond the scope of this document, this term

is not needed. Delete this term.

NL 3.32 ed Clarify. Revise as follows: add the word “later” between

the words “and installed”.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




NL 3.33 ed This is redundant. A slot is an opening so it’s

unnecessary to say it twice in the term. The key word is slot.

Replace with: “slot refers to the gaps or openings in a wire wrapped screen through which fluids can pass. Each slot is bounded on four sides – on the left and right by longitudinal rib wires and above and below by circumferential wrap wires.”

NL 3.34 te This definition is not very clear. Is this the “arc” distance

or “chord” distance between two adjacent longitudinal support ribs? Slot length is not used anywhere in this document so why not just delete it?

Delete the term. If it is left in then suggest clarifying this definition. Also, suggest including a drawing of this definition, e.g., using Figure G.1 (Page 41).

NL 3

NL 3 New term te Add this term and definition. Rib wire

One of the several parallel, longitudinal wires in a wire wrap screen jacket that are equally spaced apart to form the cylindrical structure around which the wrap wire is wrapped and welded.

NL 3 New term te Add this term and definition. Wrap wire

The continuous wire in a wire wrapped screen jacket that is helically wrapped around and welded to the cylindrical, longitudinal skeleton formed by the rib wires.

NL 3 New term te Add this term and definition. Prepack media

Solid particles, typically resieved sand or synthetic proppant, of a specific particle size distribution used to completely fill or “prepack” the annular gap between the two screen jackets in a prepack screen for the purpose of excluding formation sand from entering the wellbore.

NL 3 New term Add this term and definition.

NL 3 New term te Possible term to be added. Consider adding it the term is

used in the next revision. Gravel pack A well completion design used for the purpose of


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




excluding formation sand from entering the wellbore and consisting of a sand control screen, sized sand or synthetic proppant, and other equipment.

NL 3 New term te Possible term to be added. Consider adding it the term is

used in the next revision. Gravel pack fluid The slurry that is pumped into a well during a gravel pack installation, consisting primarily of a carrier fluid and sized sand or synthetic proppant.

NL 3 New term te Add this term and definition. “end ring

a component typically used in sand control screens that is attached to each end of a screen jacket. End rings may be used to secure a jacket or concentric jackets to the basepipe and seal the jacket ends. “

NL 3 New term te Add this term and definition. Slot size or slot width

the actual distance measured between two consecutive wrap wires in a single slot in a wire wrap screen; the specified manufacturing target for a screen order which should also include a high and low allowable manufacturing tolerance.

NL 4 ed The abbreviated term used throughout this document for

“gauge” is “ga” and not “Ga.” Suggest changing this to “ga” to make this consistent.

NL 4 ed LB, LP, and LS are used throughout this document. To

help clarify their definitions and avoid possible confusions, these definitions should be illustrated in Figures F.4 and F.5.

Suggest adding box handling length (LB), pin handling length (LP), and screen jacket length (LS) in Figures F.4 and F.5 (Page 40).

NL 4 te Is screen jacket length the same as screen length in

Figures F.4 and F.5? Suggest changing this to be LJ for jacket length.

Suggest adding a definition for screen jacket length in Section 3. Drop LS since it is too non-specific.

NL 4 te MUL is more common to mean “make up loss” and is a

term used by threaders. The joint make up length equals Use the predominant definition in tubular and threading industry and keep consistent throughout


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




joint length (measured box end to pin end for a pin x box joint) – MUL.

the document.

NL 5 ed Choose singular or plural in title and be consistent. See

clause 6 has singular title. Singular is recommended. Change to “Functional specification” since we’re talking about a single document.

NL 5 te Since this is intended to be an international standard,

where are the minimum Functional Requirements, design standards or performance standards that all screens that meet this standard will have? In other words what have you standardized that makes this a standard?

I suggest that the committee make a list of what is actually being standardized by this document. E.g., design, manufacturing, test rating procedure, solids filtration performance, slot and/or pore measuring procedures, etc. etc. This should help make the text clearer as to what is normative vs. informative. Things that aren’t being standardized should be purely informative.

NL 5.1 te It may be more appropriate for this chapter to be

informative. Much of it is optional or unnecessary in many cases. It something is normative, then optionality should be limited. This 2nd sentence is somewhat meaningless. E.g., sentence 2 says “The specification shall include the following requirements and operating conditions as the user/purchaser deems appropriate.” The word “shall” probably shouldn’t be used if it’s watered down by “as the purchaser deems appropriate.” Also, commercially speaking, we don’t ever order from functional specifications. We use something like a FS to first solicit a technical/commercial quotation. That 2nd document is what we use to order from. We may also refer to the FS, but the vendor’s quote is what we mostly refer to if it is done right (and we require it to be).

NL 5.2 te What about screens that are hybrids using both metal

mesh and wire wrap jackets such as Baker’s Excluder and slimpack which also involves a prepack aspect? What about the industry usage of the term “premium screen” or “damage tolerant screen”. These terms have been used by many to identify screens that are better than conventional wire wrap technology. Do these terms

The committee including Baker’s participant(s), needs to weigh in on whether there are going to be just 3 types of screens recognized, when there have been other products available for 10++ years that do not fit just one of these descriptions. It would make sense for the standard to apply as broadly as possible. A “hybrid screen” category is


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




have a place in this document? recommended.

NL 5.3 te This title of this clause is in appropriate. These are not

“functions” so they shouldn’t be called “functional chacteristics”. They are simply requirements or characteristics for the product that the vendor will attempt to meet with his proposal or quotation.

It seems fitting to follow “5.2 Product type” with “5.3 Product characteristics” since this more correctly identifies the contents in this clause.

NL 5.3 Sent 1 te Make this clause informative. Change all “shall”’s to “may” to indicate this is all

informative.

NL 5.3 b) te Terminology here needs to be consistent with other

changes in the document. Simplify wording. Replace with this: “Sceen slot size for wire wrap screens; pore size for metal mesh screens”

NL 5.3 c) te This item is somewhat unclear as to what it being

described. Can you be more specific? Perhaps move this to lower point on this list as it is less used than others.

NL 5.3 d) te Need to show what “range” of pipe is to be used.

Typically it’s range 2 (~30 ft) or range 3 (~40 ft) joints. Revise to read: nominal basepipe size, weight, grade, range, alloy, end connections”

NL 5.3 e) te Add on this line the term “jacket OD”. These two terms “maximum product OD” and

“jacket OD” should be listed together since they are often one and the same thing. The exception might be is something unusual were included in the product. Perhaps should add “(excluding centralizers)” to keep it clear.

NL 5.3 i) te Suggest keep it simple and clear. See earlier comments

on makeup loss. Replace with: “total screen length required (specify before or after deducting makeup loss)”

NL 5.3 j) ed Customers usually set minimum ratings requirements.

Products may have the strength but not have the rating which could include a design factor.

Replace with: “minimum collapse, burst and tensile ratings”

NL 5.4 ed Not sure what “evaluated” applies to. Isn’t this just a list

of data to be provided to the vendor? Keep wording consistent with other clauses. Replace with: “The following well parameters may be provided, as applicable:”

NL 5.4 b) ed Not familiar with the term “true measured depth and

length”. Do you mean “true vertical depth (TVD) and measured depth (MD)”.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




NL 5.5 a) ed From a corrosion engineer’s view, this item “chemical

treatment” belongs under 5.6.1 since this relates to the impact on the environment.

Consider moving down to section 5.6.1.

NL 5.6.1 b) ed This item belongs first at that is the main consideration. Swap order of items a) and b).

NL 5.6.1 c) te Some of these terms are redundant. This covers all

concerns. Replace with: “rock properties such as particle size distribution, mineralogy, clay content.

NL 5.6.1 e) ed Wording can be simplified. Replace with: “corrosivity of reservoir or injected

fluids.

NL 5.6.2 ed This is awkward wording. I guess this is saying that if the

purchaser knows what he wants or needs he may/should say so. I don’t think it’s necessary to make all these qualifications regarding data and research.

Replace with: “The user/purchaser may choose to provide material preferences when prior experience and/or environmental performance history clearly identify suitable materials.”

NL 5.7 ed Again, this is all informative. Replace “shall” with “should” or “may”.

NL 5.7 Item a) ed Wording of this is unclear. Is this all about connections

and x-overs that will connect directly to the screen? Add the name of the connection. Premium connections are proprietary products.

NL 5.8 & 5.9 ed Add a “/ “between “user purchaser”

NL 6 & 6.1 ed Not sure of what the purpose of this whole chapter is.

Are these supposed to be specs that all screens must meet (by design, manufacturing, and function) to be in compliance with this standard spec? What is a technical specification in the real commercial process? Clause 6.1 seems to say it’s the vendor’s technical/commercial proposal or quotation. But the rest of the chapter seems to say that these are minimal design and manufacturing standards. Which is it?

Consider replacing with something clearer such as this: “The Technical Specification is the supplier/manufacturer’s technical response to the solicitation from the purchaser/user for a proposal and quotation.” OR “All screens shall meet the requirements of this clause in order to be in compliance with this standard.” It’s one or the other, but probably not both. Each subclause needs to be aligned with the purpose of the chapter.

NL 6.2 ed See earlier comment questioning what are you

standardizing. Is this a list of functional requirements that must be met to comply with this standard?

If this is just the description of the technical proposal that the vendor provides the customer, then you don’t need this section. Delete it.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




NL 6.2 ed Except for a) which should be deleted, these are better

defined as functional specifications as they relate to the functions the product provides.

Consider renaming this section or deleting it.

NL 6.2 a) ed This is superfluous and should be deleted. Delete this item.

NL 6.2 d) ed Improve wording. There are no corrosion requirements.

There is a requirement for corrosion resistance. Replace with: “withstand the stresses and meet or exceed the corrosion resistance requirements of completing, producing and workover operations.

NL 6.3.1 2nd sent. ed ISO wording not followed. Replace “will” with “shall”.

NL 6.3.2 ed Wording is confusing. What does “and/or the service”

have to do with “materials”?

NL 6.3.2 Par 2 ed This paragraph could be more concise and tie better to

the functional specification and technical specification documents.

Replace with: “The user/purchaser may specify materials of sand screen construction in the functional specification. If the supplier/manufacturer proposes to substitute alternative materials in the technical specification, then all substitutions shall be explicitly noted as substitutions and certified in writing that each is fit for the service required in the functional specification. “

NL 6.3.2 Par 3 & 4 te Not all pipe is API. E.g., higher strength 13 Cr and CRA

tubulars are not API tubulars or grades. There is a separate ISO document drafting for CRA tubulars that should be referenced. Do you mean to say that if screen is mounted on pipe that is not made in accordance to one of these tubular standards, then the screen can not meet this standard? E.g., what about line pipe?

Add additional references to cover all pipes.

NL 6.3.3 ed Performance rating may be too broad a title. E.g.,

filtration performance is not addressed in this document. Simply and clarify it by calling it: “Collapse, Burst and Tensile Ratings

NL 6.3.3 Par 1 te It is important for manufacturers to provide “ratings” which

may include a design factor that assures the product will perform at the rated limit. Customers should know they can use the product up to its rating without fear of failure.

Replace Par 1 with: “The supplier/manufacturer shall establish design ratings for the collapse, burst and tensile strength of each screen design family noting the design factor, applicable


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




By the way it is written, the manufacturer must provide a maximum temperature rating with each mechanical rating. The “minimum acceptable material yield strength” is an uncommon term. When materials are ordered the term is referred to as “minimum specified yield strength”.

temperature range, and excluding any limitations of end connections. The ratings shall establish the limits at which the product may be used without failing. These ratings shall be validated by physical testing and shall be based on calculations using minimum specified material conditions (e.g., minimum specified yield strength, minimal thickness tolerances, etc.). Physical tests shall be performed according to the test procedures liste in:”

NL 6.3.3 Last par te This paragraph needs to be reworded to fit with the above

recommended revision. The current version is somewhat redundant with the existing par 1.

Replace with: “It may be appropriate to de-rate the collapse, burst and tensile ratings of sand screens to be used at elevated temperatures. De-rating of mechanical properties of metallic screen components shall be in accordance with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II, Part D.

NL 6.4 Par 1 ed See last sentence in 6.3.1. …..”verified by a qualified

individual other than…..”. Are we talking about the same “verification process” in both of these clauses? I’m still not sure what design verification is. Who does it? What are their credential requirements? What does it mean to “evaluate activities such as design reviews”?

If these are the same “verification” then 6.3.1 and 6.4 need to tie clearly together. If not, then perhaps need to eliminate the word “verify” from 6.3.1. This needs clarification as to what is meant.

NL 6.5 &6.5.1 ed It would be good to say at the first of this clause exactly

what “design validation” is since the prior clause has a similar sounding title which is somewhat confusing.

Add as the first sentence: “Design validation is the process by which a sand control screen design is physically tested to prove that the design adequately meets or exceeds its design functionality requirements and performance ratings.”

NL 6.5.1 Par 1 ed Edit. Add the word “design” before the terms “validation

test” and “validations grade.”

NL 6.5.1 Par 2 ed Edit. Change “have on file” to “maintain on file”.

NL 6.5.1 Par 2 ed Incorrect terminology. Use “shall” not “will”. Clarify other

terms. “no longer active” is vague. Replace with: “The test records shall be maintained throughout the life of a design family


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




until at least five years after the design family is no longer commercially offered.”

NL 6.5.2 te It would be better to put all of the test information with

each test procedure and not spread it around so that one has to hunt for it.

Copy items 1) through 7) to each test procedure and delete them from this clause.

NL 6.5.2 Item 1) ed Is “a complete screen assembly” defined anywhere?

Clarify as recommended. Replace with: “A single screen joint (see Fig F.4) shall be tested, having a minimum screen jacket length of 2,44 m (8 ft).

NL 6.5.2 Item 5) te It seems it might make better sense to settle on a slot

size that is the dominant size used in industry. I might guess that is 0.012” but then that would probably be just for the USA. See suggestion. There is the question as to how much slot size affects burst and collapse ratings and whether that is important. If someone wants a 0.016” slot but the testing is based on 0.010”, is there a risk the larger slot screen could fail at a lower value?

The default slot size should be 0.012” if that is the dominant size. There may need to be a note of caution added that slot size may impact results.

NL 6.5.2 Item (6) te The method used by the manufacturer to specify the pore

size of the metal mesh screen should be given. The current requirement (Item (6)) only requires the pore size be specified but not the method in which this pore size is arrived.

Suggest that this Item (6) be changed to: “For metal mesh products, the pore size and the method used in determining this pore size be specified by the manufacturer.”

NL 6.5.3 Item 1 ed Edit. Capitlize International Standard. Insert the word

“design” ahead of “validation”.

NL 6.5.3 Items 2, 3, & 4

ed Need to also specify clause 6.5.1 in all of these design validation grades. There’s a lot of repetition in these items that could be eliminated to make it less work on the reader.

NL 6.6 Par 1 ed Wording is akward. Normative text is missing. Replace 2nd sentence with: “A design that

undergoes substantive change shall constitute a new design requiring design verification per clause 6.4 and design validation per clause 6.5.

NL 6.6 Item 1 ed Text is inappropriate. Stress levels depend on applied

load conditions. What really should be considered are the “design limits and ratings”. Text is redundant:

Replace with “design limits and ratings of the modified components.”


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




“modified means the same as “changed”.

NL 6.6 Last sent ed It’s not clear what you are trying to say here. Suggested

clarification is provided. Replace with: “The technical basis for establishing that a design change is non-substantive shall be documented.”

NL 6.7.1 te The first sentence should explain what is meant by

scaling. Add as the first sentence: “Scaling is the process by which the performance ratings of any untested screen sizes are estimated.”

NL 6.7.2.1 and 6.7.2.2

Items ed The term “surface wrap wire” is not recommended. See several other comments on terminology consistency provided.

Replace “surface wrap wire” with just “wrap wire”.

NL 6.7.2.2 and 6.7.2.2

Item s ed The term “support rib” is not recommended. See several other comments on terminology consistency provided.

Replace “support rib” with just “rib wire”.

NL 6.7.2.3 Item 8 & 9 ed Missing words; terminology needs to be consistent. Use

shroud in lieu of “cover”. Replace with: “radial clearances between mesh and drainage or support layers or protective shroud or basepipe.

NL 6.7.3 Par 1 te Since this is an IS, should anything at all be mentioned

about “common sizes”? What’s the point of this? Best to omit it. Be sure and use ISO units. “Size” is proposed to be defined in the terms section. No need to repeat the definition in this paragraph.

Omit as appropriate.

NL 6.7.3 All 3 bullets ed The term “test values” is not recommended as the topic

heading since we are after “product design ratings”. See comments on clause 6.3.3.

Change all bullet headings and texts to read “design ratings” instead of “test values” or “values”.

NL 6.7.3 All 3 bullets ed You should avoid having one sentence that says what

you can do and then immediately follow it with a contrary sentence that says what you can’t do. Instead, it would be clearer and more concise to combine the two sentences into a single compound sentence using the word “except” or “but”. In this way the idea that there is an exception is immediately seen and not inadvertently missed.

Here’s an example: Replace with this: “Burst design rating: The design rating for a tested size may be applied as the rating for all smaller untested sizes within a design family but cannot be applied or extrapolated to larger sizes. “ Do the same for the other bullets.

NL 7 Whole chapter

te It’s not clear as to whether all the clauses and subclauses in this chapter are mandatory or what. This whole

Review all clauses and subclauses in Chap 7 to make sure that it is clear when tests and


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




chapter 7 seems to have numerous clauses where this problem exists.

inspections are mandatory or not.

NL 7.2.2 Sentence 1 ed Clarify. Replace with “Product data sheets applicable to a

sand control screen purchase order…….”

NL 7.2.2 Item 2 ed Inconsistent terminology. Add “or part number”

NL 7.2.2 Item 7 & 8 ed Inconsistent terminology. If this list is not intended to be

precise, then use more general terminology. Use terminology defined in the document by listing all the specific parameters or use a generalized term such as “screen dimensional data”.

NL 7.2.2 Item 10 ed “Top and bottom connections” is an unusual way to say

this. Are you talking about what’s on each screen joint or something else?

Replace this items with “base pipe end connections”

NL 7.2.2 Item 11 ed Inconsistent terminology. Replace this with “design ratings for burst,

collapse and tensile strength”

NL 7.3 te More precise language would be labelling. Change title of this clause to “Product labelling

Replace the text to read “permanently labelled”

NL 7.4 Table 1 te Q1 for Screen Slot Dimension is inadequate and does

not reflect that the number of slots increases dramatically both with length and OD of the jackets.

Replace this wording with: “For each jacket measure 100% of the slots over the full screen jacket length”.

NL 7.4 Table 2 te Clarification Omit the list of abbreviations next to the word

“Dimensions”. There should not be a list that could be interpreted as a limitation or a requirement.

NL 7.4 Table 2 ed Clarification Omit the term “(width & height)” next to

”Screen wire”. Not all wire has the same shape.

NL 7.4 Table 2 ed Clarification Replace “Screen strength – wrap/rib weld” with

“Screen weld strength – wrap/rib”. Clarify whether this is applied to the “screen jacket” or the “screen assembly”. The word “screen” by itself is unclear.

NL 7.4 Table 2 ed Inconsistent terminology. Replace “Screen slot dimension (slot gauge)” with

“Screen slot width”

NL 7.4 Tables 3, 4 te Terminology & clarification These tables are very similar. Ensure the above

recommended changes to Table 2 are likewise


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




carried through to tables 3 and 4.

NL 7.4 Tables 2,3,4 te LDP inspection of 100% of the welds for Q1 is excessive

and unnecessary based on our experience. It is preferable that a lower value be used so that fixed pricing for Q1 is not unnecessarily inflated.

Reduce Q1 in all tables to “10% minimum sampling including the beginning and end of each shift change”

NL 7.4.3 Table 3 te Method to be used for inspection or method that

describes or quantifies the quality of the pack (presence of voids) is not given in this document. We have learned that there is a large range of pack quality and concentricity that can result. This needs to be addressed.

Given that the quality of the pack is critical for the performance of a prepack screen, it seems necessary that this document includes some information (normative or informative) on how the quality of the prepack is inspected and what constitutes acceptable packing.

NL 7.4.4 Table 4 te In many cases the mesh or a complete mesh screen

jacket is a manufactured component purchased by the screen manufacturer from another supplier. As this table reads for Q1 and Q2, the screen manufacturer would have to have his employee or 3rd party QC agent present in the mesh supplier’s factory to perform these inspections since some of these are not possible after the component is delivered. Based on our experience, screen manufacturers currently do not do this. Are you proposing that they will have to do this to meet Q2 and Q1?

There needs to be solid industry agreement and clarity on this matter if you are creating new requirements that are not currently used. If this is not what you meant, then you need to revise the whole table. The whole understanding of all of these quality grade requirement tables is that this is QC that will be performed by the screen manufacturer, not by a supplier of a component.

NL 7.4.4 Table 4 te Q1 does not adequately characterize the component. Replace “max pore size once per roll” with this

wording with: “Max, min and average pore size per roll.”

NL 7.4.6.1 te This clause is unclear as to whether one or both of these

are required. Make it clear.

NL 7.4.6.2 ed Vague wording. Replace with: “Welding and brazing procedures

used to attach screen jackets to basepipe shall require the following:”

NL 7.4.11.2 ed Cumbersome title is not consistent within this document.

The use of the term “gauge” may not be an acceptable unit for an ISO document. The key is the width of the slot; be specific.

Change title to” Wire wrap slot width”. Replace “slot size” with “slot width” in this clause.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




NL 7.4.11.2

te Handheld optical readers are unacceptable as a sole method or as a basis for determining whether a marginal slot passes the acceptance criteria as in our experience they are very subject to human skill factors and therefore are not reliable.

Revise this to address this point.

NL 7.4.11.2.1 Item 2) te Inconsistent terminology. It’s unduly burdensome to

count these slots. Replace “screen cylinder” with “screen jacket”. Revise item 2) as follows: “Measure 20% of all the slots on each screen jacket, evenly distributed between the four quadrants of the four lengths.”

NL 7.4.11.2.2 Item 2) te Inconsistent terminology. In practice it’s unduly

burdensome to count these slots. Replace “screen cylinder” with “screen jacket”. Revise item 2) as follows: “Measure 10% of all the slots on each screen jacket, evenly distributed between the four quadrants of the four lengths.”

NL 7.4.11.3 ed This section is redundant with clause 7.4.11.2 as regards

accuracy. Consolidate these two clauses or eliminate the redundancy.

NL 7.4.11.3 te This section needs major work and needs to be more

explicit at what it’s trying to accomplish. It appears to be defining some procedures as how to do a maximum or minimum slot widths. This is how slot width tolerance specifications are inspected.

Rewrite the whole section to make it clear. Use the words “maximum and minimum slot width tolerances” to ensure clarity.

NL 7.4.11.3 te For this standard we propose that a feeler gauge

measurement shall be the final basis upon which a slot is determined to be within or out of tolerances since optical methods have numerous issues to contend with and are often labor intensive.

Add this statement here or in the appropriate clause: “A feeler gauge measurement shall serve as the final basis for determining whether a disputed slot width is within acceptable tolerances, regardless of what other inspection methods are in use.”

NL 7.4.11.3 Last item te The statement on automated slot measurement systems

needs further clarification. Replace with this: Automated slot measurement system: use as-measured readings. Statistical averaging is not allowed in determining whether a screen jacket is within acceptable slot width tolerances.

NL 7.4.11.4 te It’s not clear as to whether all the subclauses following

this clause are mandatory or what. This whole chapter 7 seems to have numerous clauses where this problem

Review all clauses and subclauses in Chap 7 to make sure that it is clear when tests and inspections are mandatory or not.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




exists.

NL 7.4.11.4.1 Par 1 ed Poorly worded. Replace par 1 with something simple and concise

or delete it. Option: “The three dimensional nature of metal mesh media makes measurement of the openings problematic. Therefore, the following methods shall be used to characterize metal mesh media.”

NL 7.4.11.4.1 Par 2 ed Incorrect terminology. Replace “Verification methods” with “Quality

control methods”.

NL 7.4.11.4.2 Par 2 ed Incorrect terminology. Replace “Conduct tests” with “Conduct

measurements”.

NL 7.4.11.4.3 Par 1 ed Inconsistent terminology. “Mesh cartridges” is not a

defined term or used elsewhere in this document. Replace “mesh cartridges” with a defined term that should be added to the glossary or consider using “screen jackets” which is already defined and may be adequate here.

NL 7.4.11.4.5 Par 1 ed This sounds very similar to par 1 in 7.4.11.4.1 and is

therefore confusing. Need to reconcile these two clauses. The key point to clarify is that wire wrap screens allow direct slot with measurement, whereas metal mesh media require indirect measurement methods. Wire wrap screen orders often times involve measuring 100% of all slots (which can exceed 1 million individual measurements). This is impossible with mesh media. Measurement methods at best only reveal the maximum and/or minimum pore size for a particular method.

See prior comment for 7.4.11.4.1. Replace this sentence with: “Direct and individual surface measurement of the pore sizes of metal mesh media is not feasible because of the three dimensional and non-linear nature of the openings and passages through the media. Therefore, indirect measurement methods must be used and these methods are only capable of identifying the maximum and/or minimum value. Also, this value may vary depending on the method used. The manufacturer shall use one or more of the following methods to define the rated pore size of a metal mesh screen. “

NL 7.4.11.4.5 Par 1 ed Missing word. Add the word “to” after the word “techniques”.

NL 7.4.12 Par 1 ed It’s not clear what you mean in some of this. Also

purchasers want you to ensure the proper total footage is being shipped.

Replace this paragraph with: “Prior to packaging for shipment the supplier/manufacturer shall perform a final inspection to verify, as a minimum, the following: the screen assemblies, including end connection threads, are clean and undamaged;


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




any required accessory components are properly and securely attached; and screen size, slot width/mesh rating, screen material, handling clearances, basepipe weight/grade/connections, and footage requirements (after deducting connection make-up loss) are as specified in the user/purchaser’s functional specification and/or purchase order.”

NL 8 Whole chap Several of these clauses seem to not allow for other

agreements in the user/purchaser’s purchase order and/or functional specification.

Add where appropriate the phrase “or as specified in the user/purchaser purchase order.”

NL 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3.

Unnecessary subdivision; vague language. Protect it from what? This needs to be more specific. Threads are protected from corrosion by putting a preservative coating on them (e.g., Kendex) and by installing thread protectors and by ensuring physical impacts don’t occur. Jackets also need protection from physical impacts, plugging particulates, corrosion, etc.

All of these subclauses are unnecessary. Combine them all into one under 8 Storage and transport. Replace the phrase “contamination from fluids and debris” with “fouling and plugging by fluids and solid particulates.”

NL Figure A.1 ed Keys provided are not labeled in the Figure. Fix the figure. IF you label the figure, then you

don’t need the Key and can delete it.

NL A.2 ed Needs clarification. Replace 3rd sentence with: “Pump a fluid loss

control pill into the screen by chamber annulus and through the screen until the screen outer surface plugs off. Continue pumping to increase the pressure until the desired collapse rating is achieved or failure is observed.”

NL A.2 & A2.1 ed Isn’t it better to say “(8.00 ft.)” instead of “(96 in.)”

Screens are generally ordered in ft or m; never inches. Don’t need to say this in both places.

Change to “(8.00 ft)”. Delete this from A.2 since it’s also provided in A.2.1.

NL A.2.1 1) te Connections are beyond the scope of this document and

so we should not burden this standard with the requirement for “threaded end connections.”

Replace sentence with this: “The basepipe shall provide additional length to accommodate end connections and to allow for mounting in the test setup.”

NL A.2.1 3) ed English units used. Need SI. Fix format to show SI units on radial clearance.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




NL A.2.1 Fig A.1 ed A key is redundant and unnecessary since the figure is

labeled. Delete the key

NL A.2.1 Fig A.1 ed Missing label. Add the following label with an arrow pointing to

the left end of the screen: “Closed end”

NL A.2.1 Fig A.1 ed Missing label; incorrect label. Consider adding a label for the pump. The “PT”

designation should be just “P” unless you intend it to mean pressure & temperature.

NL A.2.1 Fig A.1 ed Missing label. Add flow arrows to the flow line and additional

arrows to show flow passing through the screen and exiting.

NL A.2.2 Whole clause

te Our very recent experience with Halliburton has shown that pill formulation is an essential part of this test. Therefore we want a good bit more information and requirements added in this regard.

Add this: “The actual fluid loss pill composition that is used in the test shall be documented and saved as a part of the design validation record that can be made available to purchasers/users.” Add this: “The pill provider shall supply the mixing procedure, target and actual QA/QC rheology, and fluid density that are measured and recorded in the lab. Fluid viscosity and density shall be re-verified prior to use at the test site.

NL A.2.2 and B.2.2

“solids loading”

te It is not clear if this solids loading is based on clean fluid volume or slurry volume. For example, would 5.42 kg/m3 represent 5.42 kg of solids per 1 m3 of clean fluid or 1 m3 of slurry?

Please, clarify this solids loading definition.

NL A.2.3 Item 2 ed It may not be clear to reader that while the fluid loss

control pill is being pumped into the test chamber, the outlet valve needs to be open to enable fluid circulation through the screen.

Suggest making this procedural step clearer. For example, by replacing the first sentence with the following: “Pump the fluid loss control pill into the test chamber (or the annulus between the screen surface and chamber wall), while leaving the outlet valve open, to circulate the pill through the screen and exiting from the outlet.”

NL A.2.3 3rd item te The 200 psi/minute pump rate is too slow and

unwarranted. We did not see appreciable differences in burst pressures as we varied the rate of pressure

Increase the max rate of pressure increase to 2000 psi / minute to account for larger pumps


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




increase. The same should apply to collapse pressures.

NL A.3 te A single sample is not sufficient to establish a collapse

rating. Proposed change: “A validated collapse rating shall be achieved after a minimum of 3 samples have been tested such that the pressure difference between the maximum and the minimum is less than 10%. The lowest value shall be used as the validated collapse rating from the test. “ Also, should a test generate an unusually low or high test, then there needs to be a requirement to understand why and to report that information in the record that should be available to purchasers/users. These results can’t just be ignored and discarded; there needs to be some assurance that the product provides a repeatable result.

NL A.4 te This is not adequate. We don’t agree that the highest

value is the basis. It is not clear how the collapse pressure is determined from the test or what is being reported as the “burst” pressure.

This clause needs to address record keeping and should be called “Reporting and Records”. The vendors “advertised” collapse rating shall be no higher than the lowest value of the 3 or more tests where there is less than 10% variance between highest and lowest. A design factor may be applied to this value to further lower the advertised rating. This design factor along with the actual test results shall be available to user/purchasers.

NL A.4 te It is not clear how the collapse pressure is determined

from the test or what is being reported as the “collapse” pressure.

Suggest making this definition clearer. For example, is the “collapse” pressure defined as the highest pressure that can be held for 1 minute during the test? Or is it the pressure after the “loss of sand control?”

NL B.1 ed What does “on complete screen assemblies” mean? This

is unclear. Delete this term as it adds no additional information.

NL B.2 ed Needs clarification. Replace 3rd sentence with: “Pump a fluid loss

control pill into the screen ID and through the screen until the screen inner surface plugs off. Continue pumping to increase the pressure until


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




the desired burst rating is achieved or failure is observed.”

NL B.2 & B2.1 ed Isn’t it better to say “(8.00 ft.)” instead of “(96 in.)”

Screens are generally ordered in ft or m; never inches. Don’t need to say this in both places.

Change to “(8.00 ft)”. Delete this from B.2 since it’s also provided in B.2.1.

NL B2 & B.2.1 4) and Fig B.1

te A “test chamber” is not required. This should be clear on this point. There is a strong preference to watch burst spurt loss behavior (from a safe distance) and confirm more exactly the location of spurt breakthrough to dimensionally check the screen slots.

Change wording in both clauses to reflect that the chamber is optional. Show B3 in Burst test set-up Fig B.1 as optional.

NL B.2.1 Fig B.1 ed A key is redundant and unnecessary since the figure is

labeled. Delete the key

NL B.2.1 Fig B.1 ed Missing label. Add flow arrows to the flow line and additional

arrows to show flow passing through the screen and exiting.

NL B.2.1 Fig B.1 ed Missing label; incorrect label. Consider adding a label for the pump. The “PT”

designation should be just “P” unless you intend it to mean pressure & temperature.

NL B.2.1 1) te Connections are beyond the scope of this document and

so we should not burden this standard with the requirement for “threaded end connections.”

Replace sentence with this: “The basepipe shall provide additional length to accommodate end connections and to allow for mounting in the test setup.”

NL B.2.1 3) ed English units used. Need SI. Fix format to show SI units on radial clearance.

NL B.2.2 te Our very recent experience with Halliburton has shown

that pill formulation is an essential part of this test. Therefore we want a good bit more information and requirements added in this regard.

Add this: “The actual fluid loss pill composition that is used in the test shall be documented and saved as a part of the design validation record that can be made available to purchasers/users.” Add this: “The pill provider shall supply the mixing


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




procedure, target and actual QA/QC rheology, and fluid density that are measured and recorded in the lab. Fluid viscosity and density shall be re-verified prior to use at the test site.

NL A.2.2 and B.2.2

“solids loading”

te It is not clear if this solids loading is based on clean fluid volume or slurry volume. For example, would 5.42 kg/m3 represent 5.42 kg of solids per 1 m3 of clean fluid or 1 m3 of slurry?

Please, clarify this solids loading definition.

NL B.2.3 3rd item te The 200 psi/minute pump rate is too slow and

unwarranted. We did not see appreciable differences in burst pressures as we varied the rate of pressure increase.

Increase the max rate of pressure increase to 2000 psi / minute to account for larger pumps

NL B.2.3 Page 30, “Pump (or circulate)…”

te This step is wrong! As it is still written for the collapse test and not for the burst test!

Need to replace this step. For example consider replacing with the following: “Pump the fluid loss control pill into the screen, while closing the outlet valve, to circulate pill from inside the screen to the test chamber. When pumping pressure begins to increase, at about 345 kpa (50 psi), check that the inside of the screen is open by observing that the pressure gauges are approximately equal.”

NL B.3 te A single sample is not sufficient to establish a burst

rating. Proposed change: “A validated burst rating shall be achieved after a minimum of 3 samples have been tested such that the pressure difference between the maximum and the minimum is less than 10%. The lowest value shall be used as the validated burst rating from the test. “ Also, should a test generate an unusually low test, then there needs to be a requirement to understand why and to report that information in the record that should be available to purchasers/users. These results can’t just be ignored and discarded; there needs to be some assurance that the product provides a repeatable


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




result.

NL B.4 te This is not adequate. We don’t agree that the highest

value is the basis. It is not clear how the burst pressure is determined from the test or what is being reported as the “burst” pressure.

This clause needs to address record keeping and should be called “Reporting and Records”. The vendors “advertised” burst rating shall be no higher than the lowest value of the 3 or more tests where there is less than 10% variance between highest and lowest. A design factor may be applied to this value to further lower the advertised rating. This design factor along with the actual test results shall be available to user/purchasers.

NL B.4 te Suggest making this definition clearer. For

example, is the “burst” pressure defined as the highest pressure that can be held for 1 minute during the test? Or is it the pressure after the “loss of sand control?”

NL C.1 ed Unclear wording. Change “or establishing” to “or for establishing”.

NL C.2 ed Unclear wording. What does “(or twice the perforating

pattern….)” mean? What does “of screen assembly” mean here?

Clarify this entire clause. Use the words “shall be perforated” not “is perforated”. Fix punctuation and input missing words. Eliminate the redundancy of this clause and the information in caluse C.2.1.

NL C.2. & C.2.1 ed These clauses are redundant. The word “requirements”

is inconsistent with what follows it. Consolidate the clauses and eliminate redundancy. Suggest eliminate the Test Setup title. This doesn’t say much about a test setup.

NL C.2.1 Figure C.1 ed Keys provided are not labeled in the Figure. Label the figure.

NL All of Annex & C.2.1

Item 3 te Instructions are needed to define how the actual yield strength is measured and reported. “Minimum yield strength” is an incorrect term; the correct term is “yield strength”. MYS is limit defined by a specification for manufacturing tubulars and does not apply here. This test is not to determine the yield strength of the perforated pipe alone, but also the screen. It is pointless to do this test if you do not already know the actual yield strength of

This whole annex needs major rewriting by persons familiar with tubular specifications and testing. The yield strength value that is reported should use the same approach as used in API tubing testing with 0.2% offset approach. See API 5CT. This Annex should follow the pattern of API 5CT regarding naming of of some of the clauses and have similar content. E.g.,, Test Specimens,


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




the unperforated pipe. For example a P110 pipe can have an actual yield strength ranging from 110 ksi to 125 ksi and be within API specs. The yield strength of the test specimen should be reported in relation to the actual yield strength of the unperforated basepipe.

Test Method, Invalidation of Tests, Retests are just some clause titles that should be considered. Also refer to ISO 6892 or ASTM A370 for tensile test info.

NL C.2.2.1 te The same slots should be measured every time to detect

changes. This wording is not included. This procedure is vague on safety.

Revise all sub clauses to note that the slots must be marked so that they can be re-measured throughout the test. Clarify all statements so that no measurements are made and no visual checks are made until after the tensile load is fully released.

NL C.2.2 This procedure must specify how slots are to be

measured and what measurement tool is to be used. This requires precise measurement in order to determine if the slot size has increased by 2 ga.

NL C.2.2.1.1 ed “Screen body” is not a term used elsewhere in this

document. Use consistent terminology. Replace “screen body” with “screen jacket”.

NL C.2.1.1.1 ed Clarification is required for what defines Loss of sand

control in a prepack screen. Rewrite this section as follows: “Prepack screens – Sand control failure occurs when there is a wire wrap failure as defined above or when the prepack media (sand or proppant) falls out of any screen slot.”

NL C.2.1.1.2 ed Title just needs to be “Reporting” since it is a subclause of

C.2.2.1 Wire wrap or prepack screens Shorten title.

NL C.2.2.2 ed Title just needs to be Metal mesh screens since it is a

subclause of C.2.2 Test procedures. Shorten title.

NL C.2.2.2 ed Inconsistent terminology. These are not “assemblies”.

These are test specimens. “Screen assemblies” is a term already defined and used for other purposes in this document.

Replace “assemblies” with “test specimens.”

NL C.2.2.2 te This procedure is overly burdensome with all the bead

testing and may not provide reliable results as it is impacted by too much human handling. For test values to be reliable, at least 3 samples must be tested with all

A detailed review of this proposed procedure is recommended by screen testing experts from manufacturers and purchasers to determine whether it is practical and accurate or whether


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




results in a reasonable range (e.g., 10% from high to low). Also there must be provisions to address invalid tests. None of this is provided.

something simpler can be proposed. If the test has not been conducted multiple times with convincing repeatable results it should be dropped from this document.

NL C.2.2.2.2 ed Title just needs to be “Reporting” since it is a subclause of

C.2.2.2 Metal mesh screens Shorten title.

NL C.2.2.2.2 te As noted above, the tensile rating is pointless without

knowing the actual yield strength of the nonperforated basepipe.

NL Annex D ed Since this Annex is purely informative, do the words

“shall” “will, “must”, “is” belong in it anywhere? “Shall” is used in normative texts to dictate that some point is not optional.

Eliminate all “normative” language such as the word “shall, will, must, is” from this Annex and replace it with alternatives such as should, could, can or may. See ISO Directives.

NL D.2 ed Numbering is incorrect. Change 7) and 8) to 1) and 2).

NL D.2 Item 1 Incorrect terminology. The term “continuous screen

surface” is not used in this document. The term “screen jacket” best describes this.

Replace “continuous screen surface” with “screen jacket”.

NL D.3 The key missing information in this clause is that the

tensile tests must be limited to a maximum load that is intended to be well below the screen failure limit. In this sense it is a tensile integrity verification test. Once the integrity is verified, then the destructive burst or collapse test may be conducted. There is a risk that the tensile integrity test could impact the burst or collapse rating.

The realities and clarifications of all of the text to the left should be added to this clause.

NL D.4 We have a different view of what this clause should say.

Here’s some comments: Crushing loads and compaction loads can cause various types of mechanical loading and associated deformation. Loading may be nonuniform, point loading or uniform loading of the screen. These loads result in lateral or axial strains or buckling or a combination depending on how the load is applied and how the screen test specimen is oriented in the test fixture. Axial strains become significant at 0.5% and higher, whereas lateral strains may not become

This needs to be focused and clarified. This section could be written to address just transverse crushing loads. Transverse is a key word. A separate section could address buckling loads. Another could address compressive axial loads. Compaction loading is a misnomer as it includes a whole range of potential loading conditions. It would be better to leave that term out.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




significant to the screen performance until values exceed10%. Buckling can lead to various types of damage.

NL D.5 Clause title could be more accurate. It’s the movement

slippage of the screen jacket that is the concern and this is a function of end weld strength and whether the jacket is a slip on or direct wrap design.

Rename as follows: Screen jacket slip resistance

NL D.5.1 ed Poorly worded. Replace with this text: “This test may be specified

to determine the slip resistance of a screen jacket. Slip resistance is an important consideration during washover and milling operations or for pulling or jarring operations to retrieve a screen that is stuck in a well.

NL E.2 Item 1 te More information is suggested. List some of the standards that might be referred

to.

NL E.2 Item 2 te The definition for “roundness” is not specified or

referenced. Roundness is only one factor for beads. The other is sphericity. This factor may be the most important for this test.

Provide a reference from which this term can be defined. Determine what’s really important: roundness or sphericity. In any case it seems that the values should be as close to that of a perfect, smooth sphere as possible.

NL E.2 Item 3 ed Missing words. Change to “…..due to handling…”

NL E.2 Item 5 ed This statement is confusing. Add a labeled figure to show what you’re talking

about. Omit the word “small” as it is inconsistent with the use of the word “larger” in the same sentence. Is it a “disc” or a “disk”?

NL E.2 & E.3.1 Last item & item 2

te Shouldn’t the mass of beads used be different depending on the density of the beads (i.e., glass or latex stated here)?

Specify the mass of beads required according to the density of the bead material.

NL E.3.1 Item 1 ed Terminology. Replace “array” with “a particle size distribution”.

NL E.3.1 Item 3 te Unclear. This whole statement is confusing. Do you

mean the maximum bead size that passes through the mesh? What is “the zig-zag approach”? Is that the same

Rewrite this sub clause to be clearer.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




as “a zig-zag approach”? What is a calibrated microscope? Is there a more technically correct term for this instrument and can you give an example of one? Are you talking about using a magnified size comparator?

NL E.3.1 Item 4 te Unclear. Which beads are you talking about? The beads

that pass through the mesh? The axis of the particle measurement should not be a factor if highly spherical beads are used. That’s what we should aim for. See earlier comment on sphericity vs. roundness. I would think dry testing with vibration applied is the best approach. Never use wet testing.

Do more homework on sphericity vs. roundness. This doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about. You need to get a panel of experts to write this annex.

NL E.3.2 Item 1 ed Item 1 is redundant and adds no new information. See

E.3.1. Delete it.

NL E.3.2 Item 3 te It’s not clear why the D97 is the number to use. Note: on

formation sand PSDs, the size is a minimum at 100% which is the opposite of this. Is there an error here?

NL E.3.2 Item 5 ed Terminology and clarity. This sub clause is confusing. Omit the word “array” and rewrite the sub clause to

clarify it.

NL Annex F Fig F.1, F.2 & F.3

te The term Product OD is not defined. It’s also confusing. It is strange that some products have a “Product OD” and some don’t. So that just shows it’s not a good term to use. This terminology needs to be settled and simplified to match most common sense thinking in industry.

Delete Screen OD and Product OD. Add Jacket OD, Metal Mesh OD, and Prepack Radial Clearance, Inner Screen ID. Use one term – Jacket OD – to refer to any jacket OD. I.e., all screens have a jacket OD; for a metal mesh screen, the OD of the shroud is the jacket OD. You should show the inner screen ID for the prepack screen and the prepack radial clearance (also add this last term to the glossary). All of these figures need to be larger; they’re too small to see where the lines are pointing.

NL Annex F F.2 te This statement seems exclusive. I.e., screens can have

more than 2 jackets. Also to be consistent the term jacket should be used not screen.

Replace with: “Sand control screens may be constructed with one or more jackets. Single and double jacket screens are shown in Figures F.4 and F.5.”

NL Annex F Fig F.5 key te These terms are not consistent with the prior Revise these as follows:


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




recommendations made in this review and with the document’s current definitions. The presence of centralizers determine some of these lengths.

F5 Approximate joint makeup length F7 Box handling length F8 Jacket length F9 Pin handling length F10 Center break

NL Annex G Figure G.1 ed The Key G4 of “Slot” needs to be clarified. The figures

are too small. Enlarge the figures. Replace “Slot” with “Slot width” or “Slot opening” to be consistent with other drawings. An enlarged insert picture of the G5 dimension needs to be added for both views; this is too small to see. Also the enlarged view of the wire wrap needs to be further enlarged to be easier to see the slots.

NL Annex G Figure G.1 ed The drawing difference between Direct Wrap and Slip-on

is not very clear. The figures are too small. Enlarge the figures. Edit the Slip-on drawing to better show the “clearance” or Label G5 where ribs are not directly touching the perforated base pipe.

NL Annex H Figure H.1 ed The drawing difference between Direct Wrap and Slip-on

is not very clear. The figure is too small. Enlarge the figure. Change “H10 slot opening” to “H10 slot width”. Add enlarged insert pictures to show the H5 and H10 dimensions.

NL Annex I

Figure H.1 ed The figure is too small. Enlarge the figure.

NL Annex G, H, & I

Clause 1 ed In all of these Annex’s the General clause states “…….screens may be of two types:……” . This statement can be interpreted as a limitation on the way screens can be made. Avoid this type of restrictive language.

Change all of these annexes to use this type of language: “Two types of wire wrap screens include direct wrap and slip-on.” OR “Two types of metal mesh screens include those with an in-line cover and those with an offset cover.”

US 1 Ge As an observation, the second paragraph contains more

verbiage as to what the document does not cover when compared to the first paragraph as to what the document does cover.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




US 2 Ed ISO 11960 has two commas after it Remove one comma

US Ed ISO-6508-1 has extra hyphen Remove extra hyphen to read ISO 6508-1

US Also 7.4.5.2 te ASTM E140 should be replaced by ISO standard Replace ASTM E140 with ISO 18265

US 3 3.2 Te Location of coupling during measurement unclear Change text to read:… measured between the

bottom of the coupling…

US 3.5 Ed Missing comma and extra comma in definition Change text to read: …principles for the geometry,

materials, and functionality are the same and the …

US 3.16 Ed Location of coupling during measurement unclear Change text to read: …axial length from the top

end of the coupling…

US 3.18 Ed Grammar correction Change text to read: filtration media, consisting of

…, … wires or fibers which may be …

US 3.24 Te Protective cover has other names Add [shroud] as other terminology

US 3.27 Ed Grammar correction Change text to read: …and end rings, which may

include…

US 3.33, 3.34, & 3.35

Te Clarify screen types to which the definition applies Change text to read: … on a wire wrap or direct wrap screen…

US 3.36 Ed Missing comma Change text to read: change in form, fit, or …

US 3.38 Te Definition may need to be broadened Suggest to revise definition to make sure it

includes both direct wrap and slip-on screen types

US 3.1 ed Definition refers to “the production tubing” is the intent of

this ISO to exclude injection wells with sand control screens?

US 3.33 ed Definition refers to “the production tubing” is the intent of


US 3 3.4 Ed An individual singular part cannot be a “components”. Remove the “s” from components.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




US 3 3.25 te Suggest changing “person” to “personnel” and

referencing as definition from ISO 10417 Replace with “Qualified personnel”.

US 3 3.30 Te Remove “means” and reword definition. Change text to “individual component traceable to

its screen assembly.

US 3 3.36 Te Strongly suggest that the definition for “Substantive

Change” be removed and instead the definition for “Design Acceptance Criteria” be used.

Change text in clause 6.6 to read the same as ISO 10432 Clause 6.6 for Design Changes.

US 4 Ed Remove “Ga”, “ID”; “OD, and QC; not needed as these

are common industry terms and knowledge.

US 4 Bullet 13 Ed Joint is mis-spelled Change “loint” to “joint”

US 5.2 Te Direct wrap may also be specified by the purchaser Change text to read: …or metal mesh and method

of construction (direct wrap or slip-on) if applicable.

US 5.3 b) Te Slot or pore size opening already defined Remove the words: for sand retention of the gravel

pack and/or formation sand

US c) Ed Missing comma Change text to read: …clean up, production, and

any…

US f) Te “material” could be ambiguous Change text to read: metallurgy requirements of

screen, rings, shrouds, or other components, if applicable

US i) Te Total length requirement is a purchase order requirement

and not needed in the spec Change text to: joint make up length(s) requirements

US j) Ed Missing words Change text to read: …collapse, burst, and

tensile…

US 5.4 Te Consider adding additional items Add c) producing interval length,

d) perforation depth/type, e) perforated casing OD, ID, & weight

US 5.5 a) Ed Missing comma Change text to read: … temperature, pump rate,

and …

US f) Ed Missing comma Change text to read: … well clean up, or

production


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




US 5.6.1 a) ed Missing comma Change text to read: … composition, … …liquid,

and/or gaseous, to which the product is exposed during …

US b) Te Unclear reference to pressures Change text to read: ..temperatures, flow rates

(production and/or injection), and reservoir pressure

US 5.7 Entire section

Te Consider combining with 5.5 Combine section 5.7 with 5.5

US 5.8 ed “user purchaser” solidus omitted ; user/purchaser

US 5 5.1 Ed Combine and reword the first two sentences. Change text to read: “The user/purchaser shall

prepare a functional specification for ordering products conforming to this International Standard and specify the following requirements and operating conditions, as applicable, and/or identify the supplier’s/manufacturer’s specific product.”

US 5 5.3.d Te Weight should be mass. The ISO editors will mandate that this be changed

to mass.

US 5 5.3.j Te Torsion Should torsional strength also be included?

US 5 5.3 thru 5.6 Ed All items in the lists shall have a semi-colon at the end,

except for the last item which shall have a period. Add semi-colons and period.

US 5 5.7 Ed All items in the list shall have a semi-colon at the end,

except for the last item which shall have a period. Change text to add semi-colons except retain the period in the last item.

US 5 5.8 Te Change “one” to “the”. It is critically important that each end item product

be identified with its own specific validation grade.

US 5 5.9 Te Change “one” to “the”. It is critically important that each end item product

be identified with its own specific quality grade.

US 6 6.3.1 Te The clause as stated here is “Design requirements”.

Design documentation consist of different requirements and is a part of Clause 7

Change clause title to “Design requirements”.


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




US 6 6.3.2 Ed 3rd para, remove /API5CT. This is covered in the note.

US 6 6.3.3 Te Remove “the performance ratings shall

be based on the minimum acceptable yield strength and minimum material conditions,” from 1st para, 2nd sentence, as this is redundant to the 3rd para.

Reword the second para to read “As applicable, the values shall be based on the test procedures listed in:”

US 6 6.5.1, 1st para.

Te Reword this paragraph. Change text to read: “The sand control screens produced in accordance with this International Standard shall pass the validation test, as required by the applicable validation grade, in Annexes A, B, or C.”

US 6 6.5.3 Te For V3, V2, V1 remove “6.5.3”. A clause cannot define

itself the same as a definition cannot define itself. Remove 6.5.3.

US 6 6.6 Te See earlier comment on definition 3.36. Change text to that of ISO 16070, 2nd edition,

based on Design Acceptance Criteria.

US 6.2 d ed Refers to “ and the production conditions” is the intent of


US 6.5.2 (1) ed The use of the comma instead of the full stop (eg 2,44 m)

is quite common but not universal in Europe but I suspect fairly new to the Americas and perhaps the rest of the world. Does this not need some explanation as to its use, perhaps in “terms and definitions”?

US 6.3.1 Para 1 Te Design requirements are communicated by ratings

desired by the customer and not the actual values. Change text to read: …burst and/or tensile strength ratings required….

US 6.3.3 Para 1 Te Collapse, burst, and tensile strength are stated to include

temperature limits. Suggest that limits is really effects. Change text to read: …considering any temperature effects on material properties.

US Last para Ed Materials is possessive but no apostrophe

Missing comma after calculations Change materials to material’s Add comma after calculations


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




US 6.5.2 Bullet 1 Te Requirement for single screen jacket length of at least 96

inches may not be met by some manufacturers. Change wording to state: …shall be tested using a screen filter length of at least 2,44 m (96 in).

US Bullet 5 Te Current requirement is for a 10 ga. Slot. This has no

tolerance associate with it. Suggest to state: ..a 10 ga. (nominal) slot…

US 6.6 Para 1 Ed Substantive change is not defined Add definition for substantive change

US 7.3 Te Permanent marking is duplicitous Identifying number traceable to quality records

gives all Q and V information about the product.

US 7.4.1 Para 1 Te The distinction between wire wrap screen and direct wire

wrap screen is not clear in the document. If direct wrap is a method of manufacture that has special quality requirements associated with it, it should be a different screen type.

US 7.4.5.2 3) Te Referen

US 7.4.2 Table 2 ed Quality requirements column refers to “other rings” is this

meant to include or exclude “screen end rings”?

US 7.4.3 Table 3 ed Quality requirements column refers to “other rings” is this

meant to include or exclude “screen end rings”?

US 7.4.4 Table 4 ed Quality requirements column refers to “other fittings,

rings, cover, centralizers ” is this meant to include or exclude “screen end rings”?

US 7.4.8 ed The sentence through to “or international standards

agency” does not sence? Should not the word “agency” be deleted?

US 7.4.11.1 te Starts of “All components shall be dimensionally

inspected…” However, goes on to state “ISO 2859-1 shall be used to establish sampling plans procedures” Surely this statement is contradictory if ALL have to be measured?

US 7.4.11.3 te Feeler gauge example, I do not follow the logic behind the

max & min acceptance? Pls explain why go/no go is greater than the spec and what the gauges are capable of


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




measuring to?

US 7 7.4.2, 7.4.3, 7.4.4 Tables 2, 3, and 4 repectively.

Te For Traceability under Q3, what is the COC supposed to contain? The same for Documentation under Q1, Q2, Q3, what is the COC to contain?

Clarify requirements in Tables 2, 3, 4.

US 7 7.4.5.2.3) Ed Remove comma after the word “materials”. Correct text.

US 7 7.4.7 Te Change “required” to “requirements”. Correct text.

US 7 7.4.10.1 Te The standard ASNT abbreviation for liquid penetrant test

is “PT” not “LDP” Correct abbreviation to ASNT terminology.

US 7 7.4.11.2.1 7.4.11.2.2 7.4.11.2.3

Ed Add the words “quality control grade” before each of Q1, Q2, Q3.

Correct text

US 8 te No mention of HANDLING procedures required for CRA’s

etc??

US Annex A te No mention of the perforation pattern, surely this has an

effect?

US Figure A1 ed A1 to A5 not shown in/on figure?

US A4 ed Should “picture” not reads “photographs”?

US Annex A,

Annex B

A.2.2, bullet 4 B.2.2, bullet 4

Te Leak off test has no method associated with it. Also, acceptance criteria does not have time period associated with it.

Change to state: Fluid leak-off shall be measured per API RP 13B-1 clause 7.2

US A.2.3 B.2.3

Te The maximum rate of pressure increase (200 psi/min) may not be feasible for all test setups.

Change wording to remove pressure increase rate requirements.

US Figure B1 B1 through B7 not shown in/on figure?

US Annex B te No mention of the perforation pattern, surely this has an

effect?

US B4 ed Should “picture” not reads “photographs”?


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




US C 2 te “..perforation per the manufacturer’s standard” what

about also a reference to “perforation as per contract requirements”

US C.2.1 te “elongation throughout the test” does this refer to screen

and/or base pipe?

US Figure C1 ed C1 through C5 not shown in/on figure?

US Annex C C.2 Ed Last sentence has extra period Remove period in front of phrase “or failure is

observed.”

US Annex C C.2.1 Te Step 3 under test setup is not required Delete step 3.

US C.2.2.1 3)

Ed Sand control failure could also be loss of sand control Change text to ..or loss of sand control occurs.

US C.2.2.1 note 2

te States, “Measure and record 20 readings of the slot opening” is the intent really to take 20 readings on 1 slot or readings on 20 different slots?

US C.2.2.1.1 te Is the assumption here that the base pipe can never fail in

these tests?

US C.2.2.1.2 ed Should “picture” not reads “photographs”?

US C.2.2.2.2 ed Should “picture” not reads “photographs”?

US D.5.2 (1) ed Should “is direct welded” not be “is directly welded”?

US Figure D1 ed D1 through D4 not shown in/on figure?

US D.7.1 (1) ed Since this is an ISO standard should the correct ISO

spelling of metre not be used instead of meter?

US D.7.1 (2) ed Since this is an ISO standard should the correct ISO

spelling of metre not be used instead of meter?

US D.7.1 (4) te States “ for wire wrap designs, slots are measured at

several points along its length” Pls define “several”


MB1


Annex (e.g. 3.1)


ote (e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2




Pls define if the intent of statement is to measure at several points “along the screen length” or “along the slot length”?

US E.2, line 3 ed Should “ ..shape due handling..” not read “.. shape due to

handling..”?

US Figure F2 ed Is F1 correctly shown? Also is F2 omitted?

US Annex F Figure F.1 Te Product OD (F1) is missing Add F1 to F2 dimension line (they are the same)

US Te F1 dimension is incorrect Move extension lines on F1 to go to full OD of

product.

US Figure F.4 & Figure F.5

Te F7 callout is incorrect and F9 callout is incorrect Change callout for F7 to read “Box handling length (LB)” and change callout for F9 to read “Pin handling length (LP)”

US G1 It may just be the copy but the “differences” are not very

obvious/clear.

iso/tc 67 / sc 4 api for ansimycommittees.api.org/standards/isotc67sc4/ndocs/2007/n388.pdfed asme...

Documents