API Std 53 - Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells

Last update: October 17, 2014

Standard
53

Edition
4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

Section

Inquiry #

Question

6.3.1.1
7.3.1.1
7.4.1.1

53-01-13

Background: When a piece of equipment is built to an API equipment

specification it complies with the specification at the time it was built. If
it is repaired or remanufactured, it may be brought up to the latest
edition of the equipment specification if possible. Therefore, in service
equipment on a rig may not comply with all of the requirements of the
latest edition of the relevant equipment specification.

Reply
The intent is that compliance with the normative references applies
at the time the rig is built and/or the BOP system or components
are installed. This can also be affected by a contractual
agreement or regulatory requirements.

API 53, Section 2 (Normative References), states For undated

references (no date included in the listing), the latest edition of the
referenced document applies. Sections 6.3.1.1, 7.3.1.1, and 7.4.1.1
state Control systems for subsea BOP stacks shall be designed,
manufactured, and installed in accordance with API 16D. API 53 also
states in various sections that you shall meet API 16D, Method A, B, or C
for precharge calculations, which is calling out a specific requirement of
API 16D.
Question: Do Sections 6.3.1.1, 7.3.1.1, and 7.4.1.1 require in-service
control systems to always be 100% in compliance with the latest API
16D, or are these sections referring only to specific requirements of 16D
like the precharge?
53

53

4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

6.2.3.2.2

53-09-13

Section 6.2.3.2.2 a) advises what the minimum nominal I.D. for choke
lines by pressure rating only. For pressure rated systems 10K and
above, is a 3 in. nominal I.D. choke line required for 4-inch. and 7-inch.
through-bore BOP equipment?

No; 4-inch up to, but not including 7 1/16-inch. bore equipment, is

not addressed in API 53 or API 16A.

4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

6.2.3.2.2

53-02-14

Referring to Section 6.2.3.2.2, can you please clarify further the meaning
of the size range shown and your interpretation of nominal diameter?

The intent is that the pipe ID be as close as practical to the ID of

the valves.

4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

6.3.5

53-12-13

Is API 53, Sections 6.3.5.4 and 6.3.5.5 saying that the pumps need to be
checked on the initial test and the subsequent tests, only on the initial
test, or only when the equipment owners PM program requires it?

Yes; the intent of 6.3.5.4 and 6.3.5.5 is to conduct the test at predeployment, initial latch-up, and not-to-exceed six months. Any
other testing is at the discretion of the equipment owner or other
applicable requirements that fall outside of API 53.

Page 1 of 7

API Std 53 - Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells

Last update: October 17, 2014

Standard
53

Edition
4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

Section

Inquiry #

Question

6.3.11.2.5
7.3.13.2.5
7.4.8.2.5
7.3.13.2.5

53-03-13

A drilling contractor has a new rig with a subsea MUX stack and subsea
conventional stack (for weight on older wellheads). They have stated
that the drape hose are below the moonpool and that the shielding is
more for wave motion than fire rating. The moon pool conduit lines are
hard pipe.
Sections 6.3.11.2.5, 7.3.13.2.5, 7.4.8.2.5, and 7.3.13.2.5 are ambiguous
with respect to the requirement of fire retardant hoses. It is our
understanding that the requirement in 7.3.13.2.5 takes precedence and
hence the hoses should not be fire retardant.
The note in Std 53 indicates that the API requirement assumes that a fire
in the moonpool would burn out the conduit hoses and hence trigger the
deadman system if the electrical signals are also lost. For our deepwater
semis however, it is not likely that the hoses are affected by a fire in the
moonpool as the hoses are hanging below bottom box of the rig. There
is no requirement in the API of how short time the hose should sustain a
fire, and hence the design will not be a proper form of weak link design.
Can you clarify if a fire retarded hose for the conduit line and hot line will
fulfil the requirements in Std 53?

53

53

4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

6.3.8

53-16-14

4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

6.5.3

53-01-14

4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

6.5.3.4.1

53-05-13

Reply
Keep in mind that API 16D is the specification for control systems;
do not confuse the requirements of API 16D with those of API 16C
(choke and kill systems). Additionally, Section 6.3.11.2.5 applies
only to surface BOPs.
The intent in API 53 is to provide a weak link between the control
system and the BOP because the fire retardant properties would
be counter to the intended purpose of the emergency system.
Since there are many vessel designs in operation it is not practical
to have a different option for each. Sections 7.3.18 and 7.3.19
require floating rigs to have an autoshear and deadman
respectively, therefore should be interpreted as: Rigid conduit and
hot line supply hoses between the control system and the BOP
shall NOT be fire retardant.

In reference to 6.3.8 on response time and 7.6.5.1.1 on function tests, if a

system includes a high pressure shear circuit (used for emergencies)
and a regulated shear circuit, which circuit should be used to determine
if closing times are met, the high pressure shear circuit that would be
used in a well control event, or, the regulated circuit with lower
pressure?
Referring to Table 2 and Table 3 in 6.5.3, do the terms "upstream and
downstream" mean that the pressure test must be carried out in both
directions (bi-direction) on all the valves?

Response times shall be met by at least one of the surface/subsea

power circuits. See 6.3.8.4, 7.3.10.4, and 7.4.6.5.4.

We are seeking a clarification of Section 6.5.3.4.1. Our drilling rig is

skidding about every six to seven days and our operator is asking us to
only do a connection test on our BOP stack every time we nipple up to
start drilling the new well, but we wont be exceeding the 21 day
maximum required to test the BOP stack. Is this acceptable?

No; all of the items listed in 6.5.3.4.1 shall be followed to be in

compliance with API 53.

Page 2 of 7

Section 6.5.3.2.13 requires valves that are required to seal against

flow from both directions be tested from both directions.

API Std 53 - Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells

Last update: October 17, 2014

Standard
53

Edition
4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

Section

Inquiry #

6.5.3.6.2

53-08-13

Question
Background: Section 6.5.3.6.2 states analog pressure measurements
shall be made at not less than 25% and not more than 75% of the full
pressure span of the gauge. We currently have chart recorder with a
range of 30,000 psi and would like to perform pressure test of 3,000 psi,
which represent 10% of the maximum range of our chart recorder. These
tests are to perform integrity test of our operating chambers of various
equipments. Our customer refers to Section 6.5.3.6.2 regarding the
pressure test and does not want to pursue the test and require
replacement of the chart recorder.

Reply
Yes, only if the chart recorder is electronic (e.g. uses a pressure
transducer), and the test pressures are within the manufacturers
specified range, it conforms to API 53.

Question: If I refer to section 6.5.3.6.3 which states electronic pressure

gauges and chart recorder or data acquisition systems shall be used
within the manufacturers specified range, am I still operating within
range?
53

4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

7.2.2.18

53-04-14

Background: Section 7.2.2.18 states, The choke control station shall

include all instruments necessary to furnish an overview of the well
control operations. This includes the ability to monitor and control such
items as standpipe pressure, casing pressure, and monitor pump
strokes, etc.
Question: Does 7.2.2.18 require the stations where the manual chokes
will be controlled (i.e. at the choke manifold) to have the instruments
necessary for carrying out the well control operations such as the drill
pipe pressure gauge, casing pressure, and pump stroke counter?

Page 3 of 7

The choke control station in this section (and 6.2.2.18 as well) is

intended to be the same as a drilling choke control console system
as defined in API 16C, Section 10.9, i.e. the function of the remote
hydraulic choke control system is to provide reliable control of the
drilling choke from one or more remote locations with the sensitivity
and resolution required to perform all well control procedures that
the choke valve is designed to provide. It is not the intent to require
pump stroke counters on a manual choke.

API Std 53 - Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells

Last update: October 17, 2014

Standard
53

Edition
4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

Section

Inquiry #

Question

7.2.3.1.1

53-11-13

Background: Section 7.2.3.1.1 states "... flow targets or fluid cushions

shall be used at short radius bends, on block ells, and tees." Section
7.2.3.1.2 states "Short radius pipe bends (R/d < 10) shall be targeted or
have fluid cushions installed in the direction of expected flow or in both
directions if bidirectional flow is expected,..." For subsea BOP Stacks, it
is common practice to use short radius bends (or kickouts) at the riser
termination adapter and directly above the choke/kill test (or Isolation)
Valves on the LMRP. These kickouts would be connected to the
choke/kill flexible hoses or flex loops. Due to space restrictions on the
stack, these kickouts do not have a fluid cushion/target located directly
"at" the bend. Instead, the cushion/target is generally located at the end
of the choke or kill line when the flow changes direction at the
lowermost well control valves. The choke/kill pipework from the kickout
to the lowest valve is made as straight as possible for this run.
Question 1: Does a fluid cushion flange installed at the lowest well
control valve (leading into the wellbore below the lowest choke or kill
ram) meet the requirement of 7.2.3.1.1 for "shall be used at short radius
bends"?
Question 2: Is it required to have a cushion/target directly at a short
radius bend?
Question 3: Can the cushion/target be further down the choke/kill piping,
if no 90 changes in direction are made between the short radius bend
and the cushion/target (as stated in 7.2.3.1.2)?

Page 4 of 7

Reply

Reply1: Yes.

Reply 2: Yes.

Reply 3: No.

API Std 53 - Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells

Last update: October 17, 2014

Standard
53

Edition
4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

Section

Inquiry #

7.2.3.2.9

53-10-13

Question
Background: Regarding Section 7.2.3.2.9, I would like to address the
issue of the 12 inch spools between the choke and kill valve bodies and
the BOP body. The spool pieces were originally added by the
manufacturer to extend the position of the choke and kill bodies away
from the BOP. This added length prevented damage to the valves and
BOP bonnet doors during maintenance. Without the spool pieces the
doors could not be opened fully, thus adding the potential to damage the
door face during ram block installation and removal. Since the original
design of the BOP the manufacturer has manufactured an extended neck
valve body design. But, it must be noted there are problems with this
design. With the addition of a welded spool to the valve body alignment
becomes critical. If the welded extension is not square to the flange and
to the valve body, proper alignment can never be achieved. This also
adds the probability that the valves are no longer interchangeable within
the system. Example; if the lower inner and outer choke body is
prepared and fitted in place; potentially it could not be moved to a
different valve position without remanufacturing the associated choke
and kill pipework. If the valve in fact is moved to a different position and
the original pipework is utilized, it could allow the associated flanges to
be out of position and over stressed after installation. We believe the use
of the short spools is the better solution, and reduces the exposure to
leak via a ring gasket, due to possible over stress of the flange
connections, if a valve is replaced.

Reply
API does not grant deviations to the requirements stated in its
standard; we can only issue interpretations in response to
questions concerning the meaning of the requirements. Your
comments have been forwarded to the task group responsible for
API 53 for consideration as a future revision to the standard.

Question: We request an interpretation of API 53 to allow the use of

spools between the BOP and choke and kill valves.

53

4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

7.2.3.2.9

53-14-13

Is the intent of Clause 7.2.3.2.9 to prohibit a properly designed spacer

spool between the BOP outlet on the body and the failsafe valves and
spacer spools for the drill-through and all of the choke and kill lines on
the stack are spools)?

Yes; API 53 does not allow for use of spools between the BOP
outlet and the choke and kill valves.

53

4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

7.3.10

53-02-13

Background: A particular rig with casing shear rams has response time
of 51 seconds. When asked about the required closing time in API 53 for
subsea casing shear rams, I stated 45 seconds, the same as pipe
rams. Rig personnel believed that the requirements in 7.2.10 do not
apply to casing shear rams because they do not seal and thus are not
considered a BOP.

Yes; Tables 6 and 7 require the well to be secured in 90 seconds

or less. If a casing shear ram is part of that sequence then it shall
be within that same timeline to achieve a secure well.

Question: Are casing shear rams required to comply with the closing
times stated in 7.3.10?

Page 5 of 7

API Std 53 - Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells

Last update: October 17, 2014

Standard
53

Edition
4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

Section

Inquiry #

7.4.16.2.2

53-04-13

Question
Background: I have a four-ram stack (one blind shear and three pipe
rams). I have an acoustic pod that closes the blind shear rams, closes a
hang-off ram, and disconnects the LMRP. The acoustic pod is capable of
operating critical functions, just not all of them.

Reply
No; this provision is implemented with a should and therefore is a
recommendation.

Section 7.4.16.2.2 states the acoustic control system should be capable

of operating critical functions, with the term critical functions being
defined in 7.4.16.1.1 as each shear ram, one pipe ram, ram locks, and
unlatching of the LMRP connector.
Question: Is the intent of 7.4.16.2 to require the acoustic pod to operate
all critical functions, specifically every shear ram?
53

4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

7.5.6.1

53-07-13

Question: Are the blind shear ram closing times stated in Table 7 to
mean if pipe is in the BOP it must shear and seal in 45seconds, and if
drill pipe is not in the BOP, the ram must close in 45 seconds with
sufficient pressure that could have sheared the drill pipe had it been in
the BOP?

The rams shall close in 45 seconds to secure the wellbore with or

without pipe in the stack.

53

4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

7.6.8.3

53-15-13

Question 1: Referring to 7.6.8.3, do the following meet the intent of the

greatest consuming emergency sequence (excluding hydraulic
connectors) supplied by the dedicated emergency accumulators shall be
discharged?

Reply 1: Item a) does not meet the intent of 7.6.8.3 because it

refers to a primary control system function. Items b) through d) do
meet the intent of 7.6.8.3.

a) Operating HP shear functions by the primary control system that are

supplied by the emergency accumulators?
b) Operating HP shear functions through an ROV flying lead supplied by
the emergency accumulators?
c) Flowing a volume of fluid by an ROV flying lead supplied by the
emergency accumulators into a measured test apparatus?
d) Conducting the greatest consuming deadman or autoshear
sequence?
Question 2: If the greatest sequence includes a hydraulic timer, is the
hydraulic timing volume required to be included in this test?

Reply 2: Yes, all involved volumes shall be included.

Question 3: If the answer to Question 2 is yes, can it be simulated by

another function?

Reply 3: Yes.

Question 4: If well hopping, does the test at initial landing only have to
be completed after connection to the first well?

Reply 4: Yes, if the hydraulic supply system remains intact during

the hopping operation.

Page 6 of 7

API Std 53 - Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells

Last update: October 17, 2014

Standard
53

Edition
4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

Section

Inquiry #

7.6.9.3.3

53-03-14

Question
Background: Section 7.6.9.3.3 states certain equipment shall undergo a
critical inspection (internal/external visual, dimensional, NDE, etc.)
annually, or upon recovery if exceeding 1 year: e.g. shear blades, bonnet
bolts (or other bonnet/door locking devices), ram shaft button/foot,
welded hubs, ram cavities, and ram blocks. The actual dimensions shall
be verified against the manufacturers allowable tolerances.
Question 1: Was this meant to be a requirement for the listed example
equipment?
Question 2: Does API 53 specify who determines which inspection
method is used?

53

4th Edition,
Nov. 2012

7.6.11.7.6

53-01-12

Reply

Section 7.1.3.6 requires a subsea BOP on a non-moored (ie DP) semi to

have two shear rams. Is the expectation that both shear rams are
capable of shearing the drill pipe in use at the maximum anticipated
wellbore pressure, or does only one need to be capable of shearing in
these conditions?
The confusion arises out of the wording in 7.6.11.7.6 which states
"Consider one set of shear rams capable of shearing drill pipe and
tubing that might be across the stack at MEWSP."

Reply 1: Yes; the example equipment listed shall be inspected at a

minimum.
Reply 2: Yes; Section 7.6.9.3.1 states inspections shall be
performed in accordance with the equipment owners preventive
maintenance program.
If the first shear is activated it would be expected to experience the
worse conditions. The second shear or closure may not be
shearing, but just closing and sealing.
Two shearing rams must be capable of shearing the pipe and only
one is required to be capable of sealing the wellbore. It is
preferred that this be achieved on the first attempt but the BOP
system must be prepared to at least shear on the first closure and
seal on the second.
It was not the intent of the committee that the second closure be
capable of shearing the pipe and sealing the wellbore.

Page 7 of 7