I felt it was important to alert all members of a new development in the field of .. testing shoetracks to a proper standard.
"Did you know that most, if not all, float equipment is supplied un-tested?
Float equipment valves are usually designed, samples built and tested to an API approved test regime, but this is a type approval (API 10F) for that particular design and size of valve. The float equipment valves supplied to you may have been manufactured to a design that has passed the API approved testing regime but this does not require any acceptance testing post manufacture for individual valves that are subsequently used in the field. Moreover, an API type approved valve is then inserted into the float equipment steel hull vessel either by cementing it in or by threading and sealing it in some manner, but this valve and the finished assembly is not then tested. The valve is never flow tested nor back pressure or load tested as a unit before or after assembly into the steel hull
vessel. The valve or the installation method may fail against back pressure. The valve may fail to operate or hold back pressure after a nominal amount of flow has passed through it.
This means the float equipment you are supplied, other than dimensional checks, assembly checks and general QA/QC has not been tested post manufacture before you use it."
If you'd like to learn about the service that will exceed current requirements and test the 'shoes using testing equipment designed to API 6A (ISO10423) .. then read the attached.
It would be good to hear back from any members when they have used this important new service.
Site Moderator and MD of Relentless Pursuit of Perfection Ltd
Some interesting responses ! It was my idea to post this, as the owner and provider of this site.
(The original attachment can be found underneath my name in the original post, which you need to log into the site to see)
Yes, people behind this testing service are in it to make money (who in our industry goes to work for free ?) .... but the individual(s) involved have a proven track record of delivering solutions to the more pressing industry problems.
In the course of my business, I come across a lot of ideas and pro-active activity.
I felt this was a genuine attempt to increase the level of assurance .. and was in no way meant to compensate for post-testing issues such as misuse and incompetence, downhole damage and the like.
An MOT (Ministry of Transport .. a test done in the UK on all vehicles over 3 years old) is out-of-date the moment it is issued, but the purpose of the test is to assure the community and to confirm road-worthiness of the vehicle at that time.
I would prefer to see comments that move us forward.
Interesting post, but a bit misleading.
The original excerpt, while accurate, is from a sales pitch for a QA / QC company offering it's services to "test" a product without an offer of proof that their 'test' regime would actually accomplish anything that the manufacturer's did not.
And, as someone with extensive QA / QC backgroud, I can unequivocably state that the 'test' regime that that company offers would not address the single greatest problem float equipment has to contend with.
Additionally, the concept that each and every individual piece of equipment must be "tested" in order to guarantee it's functionality displays limited(?) knowlege of the QA / QC process at the least.
The clearest example of this is from another industry, the automotive industry, but is highly illustrative: airbags and seat belts.
Let me be old and grumpy for a moment. Given the fact that once below the rotary table they are effectively beyond our control, what is the point of testing float equipment beyond the manufacturer checks?
There seems to have grown up a bizarre belief that these companents are, somehow, "valves" with "isolating" properties. Never heard so much nonsense in my life.
Macondo, if Mark Bly's report is correct, was the second blowout through a shoe track in apparently safe wells in 8 months.
How many of us have experienced wet shoes? How many of us really know why they happened, other than speculation?
Would you walk under a hanging load? So, why would, or should you trust a shoe track?
Rather than engage in additional testing of kit on surface, that'll prove nothing except add bureaucracy and make money for somebody, might it be better if we collectively developed a greater sense of chronic unease about the integrity of barriers and became much more alert to situations where they might become compromised, even, apparently, after being "tested"?