The results of API RP 19B Section 2 tests conducted at eight charge manufacturer's testing facilities were used to determine whether differences in vessel size and configuration resulted in different depth-of-penetration results. Findings from these round-robin tests were also used to help guide changes to the newly revised Section 2 documentrecently voted on, approved, and currently in review by API. After agreement among the eight companies was reached on the testing specifics, the tests were conducted over a period of time, enabling an independent operator to observe the tests at each facility. A batch of quality, deep-penetrating shaped charge was supplied by a single manufacturer, and the rock targets were sourced from the same block to minimize differences and allow for fair evaluation of the different testing systems. The hardware materials and test configurations used in the tests were specified (scallop plate and casing coupon, wellbore and target pore pressures), and the independent operator verified that each test was conducted accordingly. The independent operator tabulated the penetration-depth and casing-hole-size data from the tests for comparison per Section 2 testing specifications. At each testing site, a set of successfully performed tests was conducted at confining stresses of 1,500, 3,500, 6,500, and 9,500 psi. The resulting penetration depths were all plotted versus confining stress on the same chart. A statistically significant correlation was found between penetration depth and confining stress (as expected); with a minor correlation with porosity. Most of the scatter in the data was observed at confining stresses of 1,500 and 3,500 psi. A statistical analysis showed that the diameter of the core (4, 5.25, and 7 in.) did not influence the penetration results for this particular deep-penetrating, 21-g explosive shaped charge. This knowledge enables a testing company to conduct Section 2 tests at a lower cost. Additionally, based on statistical analysis, the option of housing the shaped charge within the wellbore chamber versus an open-style configuration is valid because it did not affect the penetration results. The information and results collected from the eight different facilities provide options for vessel type and system configuration and also suggestthe variance to expect in Section 2 tests. Insight into the methods used for conducting these tests and background information on handling the cores are included.

API RP 67 (1994) provided the industry with a common set of explosive safe practices. The last significant update was the second edition (API RP 67 2007). Since that time, the industry has undergone major advances in conveyance methods, technology, and processes. Additionally, in the post-9/11 era, security has been and is still being increased. During the last five years, a dedicated group of more than 120 industry professionals has attempted to update and improve the recommended practice (RP) to enhancesafety for all individuals involved with oilfield explosive materials. Industry dialog has been fostered through discussions during perforating safety forums and industry safety and technology tradeshows. The proposed new changes for the third edition of API RP 67 include the following: Segregation of initiators into safety categories. Consideration of slickline, tractor, and coil tubing conveyance methods, in addition to the standard electric line (e-line) and tubing conveyed perforating (TCP) conveyance methods. Thermal management of explosives, particularly with consideration of HMX temperature overexposure and thermal runaway events. Safer use of pressure equipment with explosives. Improved security, audits, and personnel training. A fuller review of wellsite hazards associated with perforating. At the time of this writing, the third edition is in the final stages of review, with publication expected in late 2017. This paper discusses these proposed changes and the reasoning for their inclusion in the third revision of API RP 67.