London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Extremely,
Yeah API20E is a joke, over the top standard made by paranoid yanks, no need in it, if people looked after there studs and made sure they are torqued correctly there would be no need in it.
The only winners with that standard are the bolting companies supplying compliant fasteners just a expensive pain in the ass for everyone else
Ok let's clear this up.
You connect a BOP via a flange connection (18.75" most commonly) to a wellhead connector- I'll give you the API bit. (Do you know about API20? Full traceability of each and every single nut and bolt with individual serial stamps? )
The wellhead connector with the BOP above (for example an H4 collet type connector) is then 'latched' HYDRAULICALLY by activating/extending dogs that interface with a profile on the wellhead/conductor. Between the connector and the wellhead is a gasket.
Happy?
haha WW grammar police out in force.
Once again you don't latch a BOP to a conductor,
If you running a well control package this will contain BOP's, these will "always" be of a flanged connection in the package.
No one would call a wellhead connector a "hydraulically activated latch system" its a wellhead connector .....
You don't latch a BOP to a conductor, you would connect a well control package to a wellhead housing, not a bop and not a conductor both different things.
Admittedly I didn't read all of you message and there was a bit more there than I read but its still incorrect non the less
Murray.
I said initially"How does a BOP latch a conductor every time? "
You said "BOP's are usually fitting with a standard API flange connection, there is no latch...
There are allowable tolerances specified by API that have to be met during inspection prior to getting you COC for the BOP" which makes absolutely no sense, isn't relevant and linguistically is a shambles.
I said in reply "a BOP uses a hydraulically activated latch system with a resilient gasket of some sort between the BOP and the wellhead that has a latch profile that the dogs interface with. So not an API flange. Look up H4 or MS700."
So just to reaffirm, my initial question was about a "LATCH", your response was about a "FLANGE"
You since added "Ww, you just shown you have no idea what your taking about a h4 connector isn't a BOP??
They are two different pieces of equipment. Your [*you're]taking about a wellhead connector not a BOP"
I refer you to the initial question which was about latching a BOP to a conductor housing"
So my advice is read the ****ing post before replying.
Ww, you just shown you have no idea what your taking about a h4 connector isn't a BOP??
They are two different pieces of equipment.
Your taking about a wellhead connector not a BOP
don't say that again.
I’m just spitballing. There may be fiscal conditions where it makes sense; who can predict? And it’s not technically impossible.
Murray a BOP uses a hydraulically activated latch system with a resilient gasket of some sort between the BOP and the wellhead that has a latch profile that the dogs interface with. So not an API flange. Look up H4 or MS700.
Sipp, Biffa: not disagreeing overly with you or AK here, but WW does have some logic to his hypothesis, too. As an aside to those aspects, IF it were possible to have sufficient capacity with the current Lancs buoy physical format, the element of redundancy offers a substantial derisk. i.e. if a ship goes 'down' ( not literally, one hastens to add), the ability to swap ( yeah it would be an ops emergency, but losing 60k bbl/ d is one of them in my book) might be very useful.
Gla
WW,
BOP's are usually fitting with a standard API flange connection, there is no latch...
There are allowable tolerances specified by API that have to be met during inspection prior to getting you COC for the BOP
WW,
To disconnect a successfully producing FPSO, move it and risking damaging it by attempting to connect up to a new turret that hasn't been "dry fitted" is extreme folly IMHO.
The other factor here is a Lincoln FFD will probably be for 250-500M barrels and would suit a custom built FPSO of a capacity well above the AM's 40k bopd. The AM has only few more good years left in it anyway.
So it makes sense to leave the AM alone producing the "safe" cashflow to fund HUR's ongoing expansion programme.
Argue the case for this by all means but I think your argument is weak and that's being generous.
GLA.
Never!
There. I said it.
Never say never.
It's NOT going to happen. And not for best-fit practice. The AM is there to do a job and she will do it very well, for ten years I expect. But with all of the drilling to come, most of it successful hopefully, we will, in the immortal words off Chief Dr Brody Trice, we are gonna need a bigger boat!
"appreciate where you're coming from with the difficulties involved in build-to-print of large welded structures, but it IS possible - and bl00dy-well should be in 2019, given a fully followed through competent engineering approach. ( And failing that, there's always the big angle-grinder......)"
Everything is possible in Engineering, there are no boundaries. However, there's is always a however or a but, most business goes to the lowest bidder not the best and when you go that route (as most companies do) you need to make sure you've a bucket full of cash to put it right. I'm with ADUK on this, can't see moving the AM is worth the hassel/risk/cost
Cheers SG2. How does a BOP latch a conductor every time? Not with a trial fit on the beach beforehand!
AK; regarding WW's comments regarding second (and third a fourth, for me, bring 'em on) fpso's and their turrets, buoys etc): appreciate where you're coming from with the difficulties involved in build-to-print of large welded structures, but it IS possible - and bl00dy-well should be in 2019, given a fully followed through competent engineering approach. ( And failing that, there's always the big angle-grinder......)
Gla
Wellwell,
" But are you saying they can’t make something again from existing drawings? "
Essentially, YES. Or at least, not with any degree of certainty.
Heck. In Dubai, and when fabricating the new buoy, they took the turret out of the boat and plonked it over the buoy to check that it all fit together properly. And that despite the fact that the two were together in the same place, and a chap could go with a tape-measure to check any particular dimension within the turret on any day of the week.
But your suggestion involves a turret being made or modified to fit the existing buoy! Which is even worse.
And you think someone's going to risk multi-millions on that by relying on DRAWINGS? This stuff isn't some poxy mass-produced product like a food-mixer, a mobile phone, or an airliner. It's more made-to-measure than a Versace suit.
Dream on. Which BB poster was responsible for this idiotic idea that they were going to move the AM to the GWA anyway? It has yet to be proved that the GWA exists, instead of just being called the 'Lincoln field'.
Yes that’s the understanding. I read that too. It’s fluid in my opinion.
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/208189/hurricane-starts-exploring-options-for-full-lancaster-development/
"Though no decisions have been made, it is understood a new FPSO could be used to supplement Aoka Mizu, not replace it."
Remain intransigent if you want. It a hypothesis that’s all-something to discuss. But are you saying they can’t make something again from existing drawings?
The only caveat to my earlier post is that the existing mooring spread would have to have been designed with a potentially larger FPSO in mind. If I were BW it would have been something I’d have pushed for.
Methinks the Wellwell protesteth too much.
If I recall, Hurricane and Bluewater actually press-released stuff about a successful 'dry run' check of the buoy with the turret on the Dubai dockside.
But now it's all 'plug and play', with some hypothetical new FPSO turning up and using the stuff in place.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
So......3rd attempt
1.New FPSO arrives with a matching female turret system (existing STP buoy has plenty of spare riser slots and is already restricted by topsides capacity .....) and mates up without any significant reason for delay - No “new stuff” other than a matching turret which any ‘new’ FPSO will require regardless of what it latches onto. Shut-down time would be nominal and weather (and pull in rope suitability) dependent.
2.AM then moves over to pre-installed mooring system on the GWA and a copy of the existing buoy to match the turret system.....start up and FOIL would be much quicker than at GLA given she’s a warm asset.
3. Spirit, last time I checked, are not awash with money and would likely quite happily accept an old FPSO to get revenue at much lower capex and correspondingly it is not exposing HUR to capex for the ‘new’ FPSO at GLA and at or around the same time one at GWA.
So whilst it may not happen, it’s not quite as idiotic as you may suggest, given you area of expertise and experience in such matters you’re probably aware than plans can and often do change.
WW,
OK, you asked for it. But I'm keeping an eye on the clock before signing in to my usual late-night online poker thing.
"“It (moving the AM to GWA and making room for a bigger FPSO on GLA) is an absurd idea. For 'n' technical reasons I simply won't enter into detail about here.”
Assorted (very simple) reasons...
The AM and its mooring / turret system are an integrated 'fit'. Not 'off the shelf'. A hypothetical 'bigger FPSO' couldn't mate up with what's in place. So essentially you have to rip the whole lot out and start again.
Doing so would no doubt have to include re-certification, plus renewal of assorted bits and bobs potentially damaged through the rip-out process.
New stuff would have to be installed for yer 'new' FPSO.
Shutdown would probably be for a year or so.
Nah. I could go on and on. But the whole idea's stupid. The company has said the AM will be on station for six years. Not something harebrained about moving it to GWA. There the boat is, and there it stays.
It's not an effin semi-sub. Peoples' minds are somewhat boggled that we can move those things around from well-to-well in such a nonchalent way. But it's what they're designed for.
And why would Spirit want our old cast-off junk on what's 50% their patch, anyway?
No, the whole thing's an idiotic idea dreamt-up by people who haven't a clue what they're talking about. Hurricane's got quite enough on their plate 'debottlenecking' the thing and eventually tying it into WOSP without thinking of suddenly shutting it (and field production) down and going back to square one.
That's the sort of 'thinking' used by the people who change their mobile phone every year. Morons, in other words.
“It's an absurd idea. For 'n' technical reasons I simply won't enter into detail about here.”