Which API 6A Gate valves should I choose?
Which API 6A Gate valves should I choose?
(OP)
Hello,
I am trying to figure out the different pros and cons when it comes to the normal API 6A gate valves used in kill & choke, standpipe and well test system.
There are many different suppliers (WOM, T3, Anson, Cameron etc) and some seem to use the same principle.
However, I have come across some valves that I don't see why it would be a better solution than the other out there. What first comes to mind is T3 or Camerons FC-type valve. The one with the body bushing and seat...
Only thing I can think of is the pricing, but I do not know the price.
I see t3 HPT and WOM use the same principle with a split seat or 2 part seat, with some minor differences. I believe Anson has the best solution with a 1 part seat. (no issues with leakage between the 2 parts.
So is there anyone that could explain briefly (if you know the different pros and cons) for choosing the correct valve for the correct application.
Also, I forgot to mention the gate valves with skirted seats or retainer plates. Are their sole purpose to be used in a cement transferring application/manifold?
Why would I choose a T3 over an Anson valve? I honestly do not see why anyone would choose anything but Anson? And to be fair, I do like most gate valves. But anson is so simple, cheap and easy to maintain.
Looking forward for any reply.
I am trying to figure out the different pros and cons when it comes to the normal API 6A gate valves used in kill & choke, standpipe and well test system.
There are many different suppliers (WOM, T3, Anson, Cameron etc) and some seem to use the same principle.
However, I have come across some valves that I don't see why it would be a better solution than the other out there. What first comes to mind is T3 or Camerons FC-type valve. The one with the body bushing and seat...
Only thing I can think of is the pricing, but I do not know the price.
I see t3 HPT and WOM use the same principle with a split seat or 2 part seat, with some minor differences. I believe Anson has the best solution with a 1 part seat. (no issues with leakage between the 2 parts.
So is there anyone that could explain briefly (if you know the different pros and cons) for choosing the correct valve for the correct application.
Also, I forgot to mention the gate valves with skirted seats or retainer plates. Are their sole purpose to be used in a cement transferring application/manifold?
Why would I choose a T3 over an Anson valve? I honestly do not see why anyone would choose anything but Anson? And to be fair, I do like most gate valves. But anson is so simple, cheap and easy to maintain.
Looking forward for any reply.
Talk To Other Members
RE: Which API 6A Gate valves should I choose?
T3 is now NOV. They sell the FC type valve which has a body bushing and seat. Cameron does not sell this type of valve, only FLS style single-seat design.
HPT was sold off - was first designed by EEC which was purchased by T3 and ended up with NOV which changed the two-piece seat design to a single-seat design to meat Saudi Aramco specs.
WOM sells both FC, FLS, and Magnum type valve. The Magnum style valve has two-piece seat and seals upstream/downstream.
The Anson type valve is sold by NOV and is an FC / FLS design. The parts come from the Cameron FC FLS design. They put a piece of brass in the packing gland to prevent galling. The rest is Cameron's design.
I would think the FC style valve is the most commonly used in the choke and kill manifolds unless going to Saudi or some Haliburton locations. I designed the EEC / T3 line of gate valves from 2" thru 7-15k FC type and also worked on the HPT valve design. A few smaller companies can supply the same valve, with better support and lower pricing than the larger companies.
Petrotrim Services, LLC
www.petrotrim.com