onshore oil rig zoning questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MattB

Member
Hi all, new here and searching for answers.

Im working in Indonesia on a new build drilling rig, and am fighting with management over some new mud tanks built here which isnt up to spec.

I need to quote regs and tell them why this is so.

Firstly,

1/ Does anyone know where i can get a typical drawing of an onshore drilling rig (elevated plan type) with zoning classifications laid out. I mean as in a "picture" that i can show my national workers.
Can anyone quote me the clause numner/drawing of give me a copy?

2/ What are the rules on entries in explosion proof enclosures. Our company bought some from a manufacturer (chinese i believe) who call themselves Warom. We are supposed to be working to API spec here. Has anyone heard of this outfit?
I believe the zone where the enclosures are (mounted under OBM mud tanks) will be CL1 div 2. The enclosures were supplied with no cable entries, so the contractor here bored his own holes (non threaded) and just used a gland and locknut? Is this permissable (no thread in enclosure).
Can anyone quote me the clause number?

3/Can anyone give me the clause number fo correctly sizing a gland to fit cable in Cl1 div 2? The contractor here has used insulation tape to pack out the size of the cable insulation as all his glands are too big.

My comany doing everything in its power to ignore the issues .....i need API regs and have no access to anything here.

Any help greatly appreciated

Matt

struggling in the jungle......
 
Well start here http://www.o-zgedney.com/
The size fitting doesnt matter its the type use in its working class or application that matters .

Thats what you deal with working with esip people in contract electrical work what ever issues come up must be it money & supply in that order and also lack of rules to install sorry no pictures .

What is in the specs or contract whos the engineer ?
 
I doubt it is going to be of much use to you to quote US safety rules in Indonesia.

I am by no means an expert on oil rigs, but of the 5 or 6 good sized projects I worked on that ended up on oil rigs, they all came with an extensive specifications package that very clearly laid out what was to be provided.

I think your best bet is to look at that package and see if the equipment meets those requirements first before making any further nusiance of yourself.

Based on my experience with these type of projects, I think it is unlikely a vender would be able to sneak something past them that was real far off. I am not saying it could not happen, but its a slim chance.

I also question whether the Class/Division system would be in use. Thats a US system and from what I can tell any new offshore platforms built for use outside the US in the last decade have used the zone system for classification of hazardous areas. Even the stuff built for use inside the US seems headed that way.

BTW, I am not sure that in a division 2 area that the contractor is doing anything wrong by using oversized glands in the way you are describing.
 
The oil/gas government regulatory body in Indonesia ("BP Migas" - in no way associated with british petroleum) uses API regulations to implement their guidelines. Most other counties are leaning towards the European (North Sea) standard.

Its basically a very sloppy job thats been passed off onlo me (after the powers that be have made their under the table money) to sign off on. The value of the job is $2.5 mill US. The quality of the product supplied is worth no more than $1 mill US.

Are you saying that there is nothing wrong with fattening OD of your cable with insulation tape and cut up tyre tubes because they couldnt buy the correct size glands to fit the original cable its "only" div 2??????

Not being an expert on the US codes (which we do use here...API) i'd be very suprised if that were the case.

IF it were than i guess theres no problem with boring holes in CL1 Div 2 enclosures also.....although im confused as to why the enclosures supplied on the job (Cl 1 Div 2 ) are about an inch thick. Isnt that so cable entries can be drilled and tapped so as to engage threads? 4 1/2 to 5 threads if im not wrong?

My prob here is I have no access to an API standards or NEC/NEMA spec and am going off memory.

Might be easier to just sign the job off??
 
MattB said:
Hi all, new here and searching for answers.

Im working in Indonesia on a new build drilling rig, and am fighting with management over some new mud tanks built here which isnt up to spec.

I need to quote regs and tell them why this is so.

Firstly,

1/ Does anyone know where i can get a typical drawing of an onshore drilling rig (elevated plan type) with zoning classifications laid out. I mean as in a "picture" that i can show my national workers.
Can anyone quote me the clause numner/drawing of give me a copy?

2/ What are the rules on entries in explosion proof enclosures. Our company bought some from a manufacturer (chinese i believe) who call themselves Warom. We are supposed to be working to API spec here. Has anyone heard of this outfit?
I believe the zone where the enclosures are (mounted under OBM mud tanks) will be CL1 div 2. The enclosures were supplied with no cable entries, so the contractor here bored his own holes (non threaded) and just used a gland and locknut? Is this permissable (no thread in enclosure).
Can anyone quote me the clause number?

3/Can anyone give me the clause number fo correctly sizing a gland to fit cable in Cl1 div 2? The contractor here has used insulation tape to pack out the size of the cable insulation as all his glands are too big.

My comany doing everything in its power to ignore the issues .....i need API regs and have no access to anything here.

Any help greatly appreciated

Matt

struggling in the jungle......
Click to expand...
If the enclosures need to be explosionproof (or flameproof "Ex d") all I can say is your contractor is installing an EXTREMELY BIG accident waiting to happen - and it should happen fairly soon after the facility goes "live."

API RP 500 Chapters 1, 2, 6, 10 and 11 are particularly relevant to drilling operations.
NEC Section 501.15(E) deals with cable entries. It cross references and the cross references further cross reference so much other material, I'm not about to attempt to document it all.

Both the NEC and API RP 500 can be down loaded from several proper websites. http://global.ihs.com/ is a good one; there are many others including the document's parent organizations, www.NFPA.org and www.API.org. (A "free" version of the NEC is available at the NFPA website; its incredibly hard to use but it's complete.)
 
MattB said:
The oil/gas government regulatory body in Indonesia ("BP Migas" - in no way associated with british petroleum) uses API regulations to implement their guidelines. Most other counties are leaning towards the European (North Sea) standard.

Its basically a very sloppy job thats been passed off onlo me (after the powers that be have made their under the table money) to sign off on. The value of the job is $2.5 mill US. The quality of the product supplied is worth no more than $1 mill US.
Click to expand...
Not relevant to the issue at hand.

Are you saying that there is nothing wrong with fattening OD of your cable with insulation tape and cut up tyre tubes because they couldnt buy the correct size glands to fit the original cable its "only" div 2??????
Click to expand...
Are these the glands with the rubber inserts? if so, they could buy different inserts. It certainly does not sound like its right, but that does not by itself make it wrong.

Not being an expert on the US codes (which we do use here...API) i'd be very suprised if that were the case.
Click to expand...
One would think so.

IF it were than i guess theres no problem with boring holes in CL1 Div 2 enclosures also.....although im confused as to why the enclosures supplied on the job (Cl 1 Div 2 ) are about an inch thick. Isnt that so cable entries can be drilled and tapped so as to engage threads? 4 1/2 to 5 threads if im not wrong?
Click to expand...
Are these explosion proof boxes? If so why would they put explosion proof boxes in a div 2 area? What kind of cables are we talking about here? And what kind of glands? The zone two cables I am used to have a gland that threads into the side of a plastic box. I don't recall them being that thick.

My prob here is I have no access to an API standards or NEC/NEMA spec and am going off memory.
Click to expand...
Thats a problem. But they are available for purchase off the Internet so you could have access if you were willing to spend the money.

Might be easier to just sign the job off??
Click to expand...
Would you be able to sleep at night if you did?

I am not sure I am really seeing what you are seeing. Maybe some pictures?
 
Last edited:
petersonra said:
...Are these explosion proof boxes? If so why would they put explosion proof boxes in a div 2 area? ...
Click to expand...
Most enclosures in Division 2 aren't required to be explosionproof, but some, like motor starters, lighting/power panels, a few luminare (lighting fixture) designs, pushbuttons, etc., are required to be. And when they are they are treated as if they are in Division 1 with respect to conduit/cable entries. See 501.15 (B)(1) and (D)(1). They both ultimately cross reference 501.15(A)(1) - the "basic" enclosure entry rule for Division 1.
 
Hello All,

I work in Oil & Gas as well. Typically the drill rigs I have worked on were unrated areas, or Division 2 at best. Basically in Oil and Gas the rule of thumb I use is:

Refinery-Div 1 & 2
Compressor Plants-Div 2
Offshore platforms-Div 2
Other areas - unrated

There are obviously exceptions to this, and often the area's "rating" far exceeds the installed equipment. You are spot on with what we are seeing as far as many companies adopting "ATEX" Zone ratings as a standard, a real PITA since most of the equipment comes from North America and it is essentially a trade barrier. I know this isn't code references, just thoughts of mine from being in O&G sites around the world.

-Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top