File Name:

Standards Resource & Research Request (SR3) Form

Committee on Standardization of Oilfield Equipment & Materials

Document Information

Standard Designation:
Title: / Specification for Cross Linked Polyethylene (PEX) Line Pipe
Edition: / 1st
Budget Year: / 2017
Committee/Subcommittee:
(check all that apply if a joint project) / SC2 / SC5 / SC6 / SC8 / SC10 / SC11 / SC13 / CSOEM
X / SC15 / SC16 / SC17 / SC18 / SC19 / SC20 / DPO
Priority Matrix Ranking:
(to be completed by API) / Priority 1
(Rank 10-15) / Priority 2
(Rank 7-9) / Priority 3
(Rank ≤6)
Proposed Action: / X / New Standard / Revise Current Standard
Withdraw Current Standard / Research Only
Proposed Funding Type: / Budget Request / Special Solicitation
Total Funding Request (Parts A & B): / $ / 0.00
Name of Submitter(s): / Jim Mason
Date: / 16 January, 2017

Part A–Resource Plan

I.Background and Information:

  1. Explain the business need for the proposed action. Indicate potential cost savings to industry where possible.

Cross-Linked Polyethylene (PEX) line pipe is being used with increasing frequency in on-shore gathering systems and there are multiple suppliers of PEX resin and PEX pipe. It is used in most of the same applications as high density polyethylene (HDPE) line pipe. PEX offers increased temperature capabilities and improved abrasion/erosion resistance compared to conventional HDPE pipe. API 15LE Specification for Polyethylene Line Pipe (PE) has an informative annex (Annex C) that very briefly addresses PEX pipe, but because it is informative, the standard cannot be used for PEX pipe specification, and there have been firm objections to including mandatory PEX content within 15LE.
  1. What is the scope of the standard?

We propose to develop a new API standard within the structure of SC15 that will be the PEX equivalent of API 15LE. It is very likely that we will be able to use 15LE as a template, remove the HDPE-specific resin requirements and replace them with PEX specific resin requirements. The dimensional requirements will remain the same. Since there are two types of PEX used in oil and gas line pipe we will have to develop finished product requirements that are specific to the two types, so input from resin manufacturers and pipe producers is essential.
  1. Is this standard on the work program of another standards development organization (SDO)?

Yes / No / X

If yes, specify SDO and standard designation/project title/contact

If yes, is the work being coordinated with the appropriate group? Are there special circumstances that would justify independent API initiation of the proposed action?

  1. Are a volunteer chair and group of experts available to perform the proposed action?
    Please include names and company affiliation and indicate chair, if available.

The Task Group so far:
Jim Mason (Chair) Mason Materials Development LLC (representing Golan Plastic Products)
Dean Jenne SĀCO AEI Polymers, Inc. (PEX supplier)
Tom Walsh Walsh Consulting (consultant)
Stefan Dreckoetter Borealis (PEX supplier)
Khlefa Esaklul Occidental Petroleum (end user)
Aviv Scheinman Golan Plastic Products
Blaine Weller Flexpipe Systems
  1. Is there a need to commit resources to supplement the development of the draft? Would a paid content specialist accelerate progress on the development/revision? Is there a readily available content specialist?

We do not anticipate a requirement for a paid content specialist at this time.
  1. Are there special format requirements for final document,i.e. knowledge of ISO template required), significant graphics, photos orequations) required that would need extraordinary resources?

Yes / No / X

If Yes, please provide details:

  1. Please provide any other information that is pertinent to the proposed action.
  1. What are the implications of not initiating the proposed action? Include potential safety, reliability, environmental and financial impacts that may arise.

Lack of standards is a major contributor to product failures in the field, lack of compatibility across vendors, and difficult to define purchasing specificaitons.
  1. Is there research proposed to accomplish the proposed action?

Yes / No / X
If yes, complete Part B of this form.

II.Project Timing

Proposed start date: / Proposed date draft will be ready for letter ballot:
TG/WG: (estimated number of volunteers needed) / Content Management:
($ amount "if needed" or volunteer)

PART B – Research Plan

I.Background and Information

  1. Proposed Research Title:
  1. Proposed Project Scope:
  1. Research Amount:

$
  1. What is the business need for the proposed research?
  1. Is the proposed research edition-specific for a single standard or will it result in technology enhancement for multiple standards?

Yes / No
If multiple standards, please cite the standards effected:
  1. Research Timing:

Research is necessary prior to scheduled revision. / Research can be done concurrent with revision.
  1. How does the research support the proposed action identified in Part A?
  1. Is a joint industry project (JIP) a possibility?

Yes / No
If Yes, with who?
  1. Are there opportunities for leveraged research with other organizations?

Yes / No
What organizations?
  1. What are the implications of not performing the proposed research?

II.Dates and Funding:

Estimated Completion Date / Prior Research Funding Requested / Anticipated Future Research Funding Needs
$ / Year 2: $ / Year 3: $ / Year 4: $

PART C – ProposalFeedback/Approval InformationFor API Use ONLY

SC comments to Proposer/WG:
Date approved by subcommittee:
CSOEM comments:
Date approved by CSOEM:
Date entered into API Publications DB:

Rev 1-11-13