The contention, PipeWire understands, that is now being expressed by interested parties, is that the document might be held to be based on uncertain premises and dated information. The technical argument is said to go like this. The Guidelines apparently say that bolt tensioning is the most-accurate and appropriate method for critical, high-risk, joints. It claims that hand-torquing gives an accuracy of +/-30%, while bolt tensioning gives +/-10%. The question being posed is: is that possible? Bolt tensioning is performed by stretching the bolts using an hydraulic cylinder and then hand-tightening the nut, after which the hydraulic tension is released. So, if hand-torquing is so inaccurate, how can bolt tensioning become so accurate when a fundamental part of the operation relies on hand-tightening?
So the declaimers are saying that the Guidelines appear to infer that not much progress has been made recently in the technologies and methodologies of bolting. Naturally, the suppliers of recently-developed tools and ancillaries in this field (which are apparently being used successfully by several North Sea operators) are refuting that. UKOOA contends that the Guidelines are not intended to be definitive, that there was wide consultation (though not, apparently, extended to companies making relevant equipment that are not members of UKOOA) and that anyway people can make their own technical judgements based on the actual requirements.