[KSMountain]

This document talks about torque of 950 ft-lbs on the “riser coupling” with 6 activating screws:
http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/literature/en/downloads/capital_drilling_equipment.pdf

I don’t even know if that’s the exact right part but it looks close. I’ll go with it unless you got something better.

My broader point was just that it was not a slam dunk to get those bolts off; seems like you agree.

Some folks were talking about various solutions to seal *below* the flange, but other folks are saying that it is actually important that the top hat seal actually be leaky to some extent.

I don’t know who’s right but it’s been quite captivating – I hope they’re successful. Of course capturing the flow is just the beginning… the cleanup… jeez.

[KSMountain]

This document talks about torque of 950 ft-lbs on the “riser coupling” with 6 activating screws:
http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/literature/en/downloads/capital_drilling_equipment.pdf

I don’t even know if that’s the exact right part but it looks close. I’ll go with it unless you got something better.

My broader point was just that it was not a slam dunk to get those bolts off; seems like you agree.

Some folks were talking about various solutions to seal *below* the flange, but other folks are saying that it is actually important that the top hat seal actually be leaky to some extent.

I don’t know who’s right but it’s been quite captivating – I hope they’re successful. Of course capturing the flow is just the beginning… the cleanup… jeez.

[KSMountain]

I see this link:

http://www.geoilandgas.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/literature/en/downloads/hmf_marine_drc.pdf

And this one discusses setting initial torque on HMF flanges of 1000 ft-lb’s:

http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00013479&soc=SPE

At 1000 ft-lbs I’d still be off by an order of magnitude (sorry) but I seriously seriously doubt 130 ft-lbs is the right answer.

[KSMountain]

I see this link:

http://www.geoilandgas.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/literature/en/downloads/hmf_marine_drc.pdf

And this one discusses setting initial torque on HMF flanges of 1000 ft-lb’s:

http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00013479&soc=SPE

At 1000 ft-lbs I’d still be off by an order of magnitude (sorry) but I seriously seriously doubt 130 ft-lbs is the right answer.

[KSMountain]

I see this link:

http://www.geoilandgas.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/literature/en/downloads/hmf_marine_drc.pdf

And this one discusses setting initial torque on HMF flanges of 1000 ft-lb’s:

http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00013479&soc=SPE

At 1000 ft-lbs I’d still be off by an order of magnitude (sorry) but I seriously seriously doubt 130 ft-lbs is the right answer.

[KSMountain]

I see this link:

http://www.geoilandgas.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/literature/en/downloads/hmf_marine_drc.pdf

And this one discusses setting initial torque on HMF flanges of 1000 ft-lb’s:

http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00013479&soc=SPE

At 1000 ft-lbs I’d still be off by an order of magnitude (sorry) but I seriously seriously doubt 130 ft-lbs is the right answer.

[KSMountain]

I see this link:

http://www.geoilandgas.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/literature/en/downloads/hmf_marine_drc.pdf

And this one discusses setting initial torque on HMF flanges of 1000 ft-lb’s:

http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00013479&soc=SPE

At 1000 ft-lbs I’d still be off by an order of magnitude (sorry) but I seriously seriously doubt 130 ft-lbs is the right answer.

[KSMountain]

This is the quote I got it from, from “some guy”, “shelburn” at theoildrum.com who seems knowledgable:

A 20″ ANSI B16.5 600 class flange uses 1.625″ bolts torqued to 2,044 ft-lb and is rated for about 740 psi working pressure under normal conditions. It weighs 590 pounds.

A similar 1500 class flange this size is rated for 1,850 psi working pressure and uses 3 inch bolts torqued to 13,320 ft-lb. It weighs 2,050 pounds, the bolts weigh over 60 pounds each.

Now ramp this up for the riser which is 10,000 psi working pressure plus has to take various axial and bending loads never seen by a standard flange. The BOP alone weighs 450 tons and this flange has to lift it.

I’m not able to vet whether he’s right or you’re right. Looking a bit deeper…

[KSMountain]

This is the quote I got it from, from “some guy”, “shelburn” at theoildrum.com who seems knowledgable:

A 20″ ANSI B16.5 600 class flange uses 1.625″ bolts torqued to 2,044 ft-lb and is rated for about 740 psi working pressure under normal conditions. It weighs 590 pounds.

A similar 1500 class flange this size is rated for 1,850 psi working pressure and uses 3 inch bolts torqued to 13,320 ft-lb. It weighs 2,050 pounds, the bolts weigh over 60 pounds each.

Now ramp this up for the riser which is 10,000 psi working pressure plus has to take various axial and bending loads never seen by a standard flange. The BOP alone weighs 450 tons and this flange has to lift it.

I’m not able to vet whether he’s right or you’re right. Looking a bit deeper…

[KSMountain]

This is the quote I got it from, from “some guy”, “shelburn” at theoildrum.com who seems knowledgable:

A 20″ ANSI B16.5 600 class flange uses 1.625″ bolts torqued to 2,044 ft-lb and is rated for about 740 psi working pressure under normal conditions. It weighs 590 pounds.

A similar 1500 class flange this size is rated for 1,850 psi working pressure and uses 3 inch bolts torqued to 13,320 ft-lb. It weighs 2,050 pounds, the bolts weigh over 60 pounds each.

Now ramp this up for the riser which is 10,000 psi working pressure plus has to take various axial and bending loads never seen by a standard flange. The BOP alone weighs 450 tons and this flange has to lift it.

I’m not able to vet whether he’s right or you’re right. Looking a bit deeper…

[KSMountain]

This is the quote I got it from, from “some guy”, “shelburn” at theoildrum.com who seems knowledgable:

A 20″ ANSI B16.5 600 class flange uses 1.625″ bolts torqued to 2,044 ft-lb and is rated for about 740 psi working pressure under normal conditions. It weighs 590 pounds.

A similar 1500 class flange this size is rated for 1,850 psi working pressure and uses 3 inch bolts torqued to 13,320 ft-lb. It weighs 2,050 pounds, the bolts weigh over 60 pounds each.

Now ramp this up for the riser which is 10,000 psi working pressure plus has to take various axial and bending loads never seen by a standard flange. The BOP alone weighs 450 tons and this flange has to lift it.

I’m not able to vet whether he’s right or you’re right. Looking a bit deeper…

[KSMountain]

This is the quote I got it from, from “some guy”, “shelburn” at theoildrum.com who seems knowledgable:

A 20″ ANSI B16.5 600 class flange uses 1.625″ bolts torqued to 2,044 ft-lb and is rated for about 740 psi working pressure under normal conditions. It weighs 590 pounds.

A similar 1500 class flange this size is rated for 1,850 psi working pressure and uses 3 inch bolts torqued to 13,320 ft-lb. It weighs 2,050 pounds, the bolts weigh over 60 pounds each.

Now ramp this up for the riser which is 10,000 psi working pressure plus has to take various axial and bending loads never seen by a standard flange. The BOP alone weighs 450 tons and this flange has to lift it.

I’m not able to vet whether he’s right or you’re right. Looking a bit deeper…

[KSMountain]

[quote=Arraya]The don’t want to stop it really. It’s a choice between collecting oil or stopping the leak. They can siphon but not stop it the way the damage happened. I suppose the could siphon enough to pay for the cleanup, maybe a little more, but people would not be too happy about them not stopping the leak.[/quote]
Let’s “Bring some Data”:
20,000 barrels per day at $75 per barrel. That’s assuming you could siphon all of it at neglibible cost (unlikely). But anyway, that would mean the value of what’s leaking is $1.5M per day.

Uh, they’ve spent a billion already, and likely going to be on the hook for say at least $10B. The current hit to their market cap is like $40B right?

10B/1.5M = 6667 days, or about 18 years. But I believe I heard the well would run dry on its own in 3 years…

I’m thinking all in all they’d prefer to stop the flow ASAP.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Arraya]The don’t want to stop it really. It’s a choice between collecting oil or stopping the leak. They can siphon but not stop it the way the damage happened. I suppose the could siphon enough to pay for the cleanup, maybe a little more, but people would not be too happy about them not stopping the leak.[/quote]
Let’s “Bring some Data”:
20,000 barrels per day at $75 per barrel. That’s assuming you could siphon all of it at neglibible cost (unlikely). But anyway, that would mean the value of what’s leaking is $1.5M per day.

Uh, they’ve spent a billion already, and likely going to be on the hook for say at least $10B. The current hit to their market cap is like $40B right?

10B/1.5M = 6667 days, or about 18 years. But I believe I heard the well would run dry on its own in 3 years…

I’m thinking all in all they’d prefer to stop the flow ASAP.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Arraya]The don’t want to stop it really. It’s a choice between collecting oil or stopping the leak. They can siphon but not stop it the way the damage happened. I suppose the could siphon enough to pay for the cleanup, maybe a little more, but people would not be too happy about them not stopping the leak.[/quote]
Let’s “Bring some Data”:
20,000 barrels per day at $75 per barrel. That’s assuming you could siphon all of it at neglibible cost (unlikely). But anyway, that would mean the value of what’s leaking is $1.5M per day.

Uh, they’ve spent a billion already, and likely going to be on the hook for say at least $10B. The current hit to their market cap is like $40B right?

10B/1.5M = 6667 days, or about 18 years. But I believe I heard the well would run dry on its own in 3 years…

I’m thinking all in all they’d prefer to stop the flow ASAP.

[Author]

Posts