Document Information - American Petroleum Institute



Document Information

|Standard Designation: | |

|Title: |Specification for Cross Linked Polyethylene (PEX) Line Pipe |

|Edition: |1st |

|Budget Year: |2017 |

|Committee/Subcommittee: | |SC2 | |SC5 |

|(check all that apply if a joint project) | | | | |

| | |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

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. |

2. 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. |

3. Is this standard on the work program of another standards development organization (SDO)?

|Yes |

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?

| |

4. 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 |

| |

5. 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. |

6. Are there special format requirements for final document, i.e. knowledge of ISO template required), significant graphics, photos or equations) required that would need extraordinary resources?

|Yes | | |No |X |

If Yes, please provide details:

| |

7. Please provide any other information that is pertinent to the proposed action.

| |

8. 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. |

9. Is there research proposed to accomplish the proposed action?

|Yes | | |No |X |

|If yes, complete Part B of this form. |

Project Timing

|Proposed start date: | |Proposed date draft will be ready for letter | |

| | |ballot: | |

|TG/WG: (estimated number of | |Content Management: | |

|volunteers needed) | |($ amount "if needed" or volunteer) | |

PART B – Research Plan

Background and Information

1. Proposed Research Title:

| |

2. Proposed Project Scope:

| |

3. Research Amount:

|$ | |

4. What is the business need for the proposed research?

| |

5. 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: | |

6. Research Timing:

| |Research is necessary prior to scheduled revision. | | |Research can be done concurrent with revision. |

7. How does the research support the proposed action identified in Part A?

| |

8. Is a joint industry project (JIP) a possibility?

|Yes | | |No | |

|If Yes, with who? | |

9. Are there opportunities for leveraged research with other organizations?

|Yes | | |No | |

|What organizations? | |

10. What are the implications of not performing the proposed research?

| |

Dates and Funding:

|Estimated Completion |Prior Research Funding |Anticipated Future Research Funding Needs |

|Date |Requested | |

| |$ |

|Date approved by subcommittee: | |

|CSOEM comments: | |

|Date approved by CSOEM: | |

|Date entered into API Publications DB: | |

-----------------------

ECS SR3 Form

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download