Está en la página 1de 102

Corrosion

Prediction
Modelling
A guide to the use of
corrosion prediction
models for risk assessment
in oil and gas production
and transportation
facilities
A J McMahon, D M E Paisley
Sunbury Report No. ESR.96.ER.066
dated November 1997

Main CD
Contents

Contents

Page

Summary

Acknowledgements

Introduction

"Cassandra 98" Corrosion Prediction Spreadsheet


by A J McMahon
Introduction
Quick Start
Limitations of Corrosion Prediction Models
Detailed Description of the Spreadsheet
Comparing Output from the "Cassandra 98" Model with Field Data
Appendix 1: Henry's Law Constans for CO2 Dissolved in Brine

5
6
8
11
27
29

The Use of Corrosion Prediction Models During Design


by D E Paisley
Introduction
31
Important Factors not Covered by the Corrosion Model
35
Effect of Corrosion Inhibitors
42
Predicting the Effectiveness of Corrosion Inhibitors 48
'The Inhibitor Availability Model'
Recommended Values for use in the Inhibitor Availability Model
51
Comparisons of the Inhibitor Availability Model with BP's Previous Model 62
Corrosion Rates of Low Alloy Steels
64
Preferential Weld Corrosion
65
Effects of Pitting
66
Choosing an Optimum Corrosion Allowance
67
Applying Models to Different Flow Regimes
69
Applying Models to Transportation Equipment
72
Applying Models to Process Equipment
86
Flow Velocities in Process Pipework
89
Economic Tools to Use During Materials Selection
92

References

95

Installation of the Cassandra 98 Excel Workbook

97

Summary

This document decribes BP's current approach to Corrosion Prediction and its
use during the design of pipelines and facilities. It is divided into two sections.
The first section introduces a new prediction spreadsheet called Cassandra 98*
which is BP's implementation of the CO2 prediction models published by de
Waard et al. It builds on these models to include BP's experience of such systems.
The pocket inside the front cover of this report contains a floppy disc which
contains the necessary programs and spreadsheets to run it together with a set
of installation instructions.
The second section discusses how the prediction model may be used for design
purposes and it introduces several improvements from previous guidelines.
These include the use of the probabilistic approach to corrosion prediction and
the use of corrosion inhibitor availabilities instead of efficiencies. It also discusses
the use of "corrosion risk categories" as a way of quantifying the corrosion risk
at the design stage. The floppy disc also contains a spreadsheet for calculating
the risk category.
To illustrate the points made examples have been obtained from many BP assets
worldwide. Where financial data are shown it is from 1997.
Since this subject is continually changing it is anticipated that these guidelines
will be updated in future years and so any comments or suggestions regarding
either the content or appearance of them would be very welcome.

*In Greek mythology Cassandra was the daughter of Priam and Hecuba. She was endowed with
the gift of prophecy but fated never to be believed. She is generally regarded as the prophet of
disaster........especially when disregarded.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the following BP staff for their
contributions to these guidelines.
Jim Corbally
Laurence Cowie
Mike Fielder
Don Harrop
Bill Hedges
Will McDonald
Tracy Smith
Simon Webster
Richard Woollam

Introduction

Carbon dioxide corrosion represents the greatest risk to the integrity of


carbon steel equipment in a production environment. Compared with the
incidences of fatigue, erosion, stress corrosion cracking or overpressurisation, the incidences of CO2 related damage are far more common.
Unfortunately, the engineering solutions to eradicating the CO2 corrosion risk
require high capital investments in corrosion resistant materials. As Figure 1
shows, providing a corrosion allowance of 8 mm to carbon steel flowlines
costs a significant sum at circa US$1 million per 5 km but even this is
insignificant in terms of the costs of the various corrosion resistant flowline
options.
Figure 1: Fully
Installed Costs for
Various Flowline
Materials Options in
Colombia (1997)

35

Duplex SS

30

25

20
Cost
per
5 Km
($mill)
15

Bi-metal
13Cr liner

13%Cr
10

Carbon steel, no ca

Carbon steel 8mm ca


0
6

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

Nominal Flowline Diameter - Inches

Similar relative costs are incurred when specifying corrosion resistant


materials downhole or in facilities. This is rarely justified. For this reason, CO2
corrosion of carbon steel will always be a problem that BPX has to deal with.
Managing CO2 corrosion therefore becomes a priority and it can become
expensive. The replacement of the original Forties MOL and the severe
damage to the Beatrice MOL are two examples of high costs that BPX have
incurred in recent years due to unpredicted corrosion rates. Successful
management of CO2 corrosion starts off with the identification of risks and
continues with the provision of suitable controls and the review of the
success of the controls via monitoring - as illustrated in Figure 2.

INTRODUCTION

Figure 2: The Feedback


Loop that is Required for
Successful Management
of CO2 Corrosion

Quantify
Risk

Apply Controls

Monitor
Effectiveness

This document sets out BPs approach to the quantification of CO2 corrosion
risk through the use of predictive models. In doing so, it also discusses the
reliance that can be placed on corrosion inhibition as the only viable control
measure for carbon steel and the importance of suitable corrosion
monitoring. To put the importance of this into context, corrosion costs BPX
8.3% of its capex budget and increases lifting costs by 14%, an average of
over 8 cents per barrel. Figure 3 shows that the costs are distributed across
the entire range of facilities.

INTRODUCTION

Figure 3: The
Distribution of Costs of
Corrosion Across Ten
BPX North Sea Assets,
1990 to 1994.

Topsides
23%

Personnel
1%

Downhole
13%

Chemicals
4%

Subsea
59%

The quantification of corrosion risk is required at several stages during an assets


life. The most obvious period is during the project phase when the original
materials of construction are being selected. This process must be repeated
during the life of the asset if failures or expansions require the procurement of
additional facilities. Quantifying the corrosion risk is also important in tailoring
inspection strategies. Risk based inspection is now widely adopted and, as CO2
corrosion represents one of the most important factors governing the probability
of failure for much equipment, a reasoned approach should be taken. It is
important that this approach is theoretically sound but also reflects past
experience.
This version of the BP CO2 prediction model is the first to be published since
1993/4 when the guidelines on multiphase and wet gas transport respectively
were issued. The new guidelines incorporate changes by the authors to the semiempirical model used in the original guideline as well as comprehensive
guidance on how to use the spreadsheet included with this version. The new
model also includes the ability to predict the affects of changing flow velocities
on uninhibited corrosion rates.

INTRODUCTION

The new guidelines also consider the probabilistic approach to predicting CO2
corrosion. Probabilistic approach to design in general is becoming more
widespread and offers several advantages over the traditional deterministic
approach. The probabilistic approach is neither endorsed nor disallowed but is
discussed as, in some cases, it may be more appropriate than a deterministic
approach.
The approach to designing for the use of corrosion inhibitors has been changed
significantly. The previous approach described the affects of an inhibitor
through the use of an efficiency factor, such as 90%. This does not reflect BPXs
recent field data generated under severe conditions which showed inhibitors
can be more effective than predicted. "Inhibitor efficiencies" have therefore
been replaced with "inhibitor availabilities" that more closely reflect field
experience. There is a general move in the industry towards this methodology
and it offers several advantages.
However, it has become clear that for inhibitors to work effectively the
corrosion management system must be highly organised. Recommendations are
therefore included on methods to ensure that the inhibitor availabilities
assumed at the design stage occur during the operational stage.

"Cassandra 98" Corrosion Prediction Spreadsheet


by A J McMahon

INTRODUCTION
"Cassandra 98 is BP's new implementation of the 1991, 1993 and 1995 CO2
corrosion prediction models published by De Waard et al. The pocket inside the
front cover of this report contains a floppy disc with the programme together
with a set of installation instructions.
The 1991 and 1993 De Waard models are already widely used within BP and
elsewhere in a variety of customised forms. This report describes the new
Cassandra 98 spreadsheet for Microsoft Excel. It is based primarily on the 1993
De Waard model, incorporates some equations from the 1991 model, and uses
the 1995 model to assess velocity effects. The spreadsheet is intended to capture
all the best features of the 1991, 1993 and 1995 models [1,2,3]. Certain extra
features from outside the De Waard papers, based on standard physical
chemistry, have also been included. The source, background and limitations of
all the assumptions and equations in the spreadsheet are fully documented in
these guidance notes.
The Cassandra 98 spreadsheet is written in a simple and accessible format within
Microsoft Excel (version 7.0). It avoids the use of macros or special techniques
so that the logic and the calculations are as transparent as possible. This
approach also ensures that the spreadsheet is immediately compatible with new
versions of Excel.
The Excel add-in module "CRYSTAL BALL" (from Decisioneering Ltd, 1380
Lawrence Street, Suite 520, Denver, Colorado 80204, USA. Tel: +1 303 292 2291.
Cost ~100) enables probability distributions to be set for each input cell and it
then uses Monte-Carlo simulation to combine these into a probability distribution
for the resulting corrosion rate. You must buy "CRYSTAL BALL" separately for
your Excel environment. It can't be bundled with this spreadsheet. The detailed
use of CRYSTAL BALL is well covered in the manufacturer's handbook and
therefore is not repeated in these guidelines.
Care is required when comparing the output of any existing in-house version of
the De Waard models against this new Cassandra 98 spreadsheet. It is very easy
for errors and untested assumptions to be entered into a spreadsheet which
might then perhaps be passed on from user to user and often compounded with
other assumptions. Cassandra 98 has been written from scratch with a detailed
re-evaluation of all assumptions, all of which are presented. Cassandra 98 is
intended to be a standard, reference version of the De Waard approach for use
within BP and its partners, until such time that a more consistent approach to
corrosion modelling becomes established within the oil industry. The activities of
the NORSOK industry forum in Norway are making helpful moves in this
direction.
5

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

QUICK START
This section gives enough information to allow experienced modellers to make
a start. The subsequent section gives a more detailed description of all the input
and output parameters. The spreadsheets themselves also carry frequent "cell
notes". These are marked by a red dot in the top right hand corner of those
cells. Just double click on the cell to read the contents.
Input Parameters

Table 1: Input
parameters for a
numeric calculation

To carry out a basic calculation enter the following input values into the cells
with a white background:
Parameter

Comments

P
%CO2
%H2S
water composition
brine pH

total gas pressure


bar
CO2 in gas
mole % (NB = v/v%)
H2S in gas
mole % (NB = v/v%)
ion ppm values
ppm (NB = mg/ltr)
enter known value,
or enter "d", "o", or
"x" to accept one of
the calculated values
shown in F18-F20
(see Page 17)
oC
System temperature
oC
Scaling temperature, enter
the calculated scaling
temperature, given in cell
F26, or another known or
preferred value
hydraulic diameter
m
velocity
m/s

T
Ts

d
U

Probabilistsic Inputs

Units

Cell
F7
F8
M8
A15-L15
F17

F24
F25

M24
M25

Only the inputs in the preceding Table are needed for a straightforward
numeric calculation. Some further information is required in order to carry out
a probabilistic calculation using CRYSTAL BALL. The spreadsheet can easily be
customised by individual users to permit more extensive handling of
probabilities:

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

Table 2: Additional
Input Parameters for a
Probabilistic
Calculation

Output Parameters

Table 3: Output
Parameters

Parameter

Cell

F7

%CO2

F8

brine pH

F17

F24

M24

M25

Comment
use a uniform distribution; set F7 as
the maximum; set G7 as the minimum
use a normal distribution; adjust
standard deviation as necessary
must enter a known or a calculated
value; use a normal distribution; adjust
standard deviation as necessary
use a uniform distribution; set F24 as
the maximum; set G24 as the minimum
use a uniform distribution; set M24 as
the maximum; set N24 as the minimum
use a uniform distribution; set M25 as
the maximum; set N25 as the minimum

The resulting output parameters are described in Table 3. See p23 for a more
detailed description of how to interpret and use these values. Briefly, the 1993
rate should be regarded as the minimum. Velocity effects may increase this
minimum rate as shown by the 1995 rate. Hence, the 1993 and 1995 rates will
normally give the lower and upper bounds on the expected corrosion rate. The
1995 model is not accurate at low velocities and so it should be ignored
whenever it falls below the 1993 value.
Parameter

Cell

1993 basic Vcor

E32

1993 correction factors


1993 corrosion rate
1995 corrosion rate

93/95 merged corrosion


rate

Comments

the uncorrected corrosion rate for


static conditions
G32-K32 correction factors for pH, fugacity,
scaling, and glycol
G34
the corrosion rate for static
conditions corrected for pH
G39
the corrosion rate for dynamic
conditions calculated from the
components Vr and Vm in G37
and G38
G41
the average of the 93 and 95
corrosion rates; this cell enables
"CRYSTAL BALL" to combine the
93 and 95 probability distributions

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

LIMITATIONS OF CORROSION PREDICTION MODELS

The use of simple equations and the precision of the spreadsheet environment
can lead one to think that the De Waard corrosion models are equally precise.
However, this is not the case. The models are only valid over a certain range of
conditions, and even within this range a certain amount of data has been
ignored if it doesn't fit the main trends. Each model appears to be constructed
by obtaining a large number of corrosion rates over a range of conditions and
then finding an equation which draws a line passing close to the majority of this
cloud of points. The equations appear to be freely adjusted in order to give the
best fit to the data. The primary concern is to obtain a good fit to the data, rather
than obtaining mechanistically rigorous equations. These are empirical
engineering models rather than scientific theories.
Neither the 1991 or 1993 De Waard papers give many precise details about the
range of validity of the models. The 1995 paper does give a more thorough set
of figures (see below) but still omits important features such as the type of brine
used in the tests, and the elapsed time when the corrosion rates were measured.
De Waard's very early work used a 0.1% NaCl solution [4] and this may well
have been used in all the subsequent studies because his main focus has always
been low salinity water in gas lines. Table 4 shows the approximate ranges of
validity for the different parameters in the Cassandra 98 spreadsheet.
Table 4 : Range of
Validity of De Waar d
Models

Parameter

P
fCO2
Oddo & Tomson pH
XLpH
T
U

Range of 1991 Range of 1995


& 1993
Model
Models
<200 bar
<10 bar
--<140oC
0 m/s

not defined
0.3-6.5 bar
--20-80oC
1.5 -13 m/s

Comments

<200oC, <1000 bar


<120oC

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

The spreadsheet gives freedom to enter any value for most parameters. When
the input value is outside the approximate range of the 1991 and 1993 De Waard
models then the text will turn RED in the cell as a warning. The predicted
corrosion rate may still be useful but the user must accept the additional risk of
going beyond the known limits of the correlations.
Limits of the 1995
Model

To develop the 1995 model [3] corrosion rates were obtained on the IFE flow
loop (Kjeller, Norway) using a radiochemical technique to measure corrosion
rates. Tests were carried out over 2-3 days but there is no information about the
corrosion rate profile over this time or when the final data point was taken. Data
were obtained for the following conditions.
-

St-52 DIN 17100 steel (Cr 0.08%, C 0.18%) which is similar to ASTM A537
Gr1
0.1, 3.1, 8.5, 13 m/s flow velocity
20 - 90 oC
0.3 - 20 bara CO2

Certain inconsistencies in the data set were eliminated prior to developing the
model. These included:
-

0.1 m/s excluded


13 m/s excluded when corrosion rate less than at 8.5 m/s
90oC excluded
CO2 >6.5 bar excluded

Eventually 221 data points were used in the main correlation (Figure 2 ref 3).
The main equations are specific to St-52 steel because, "The equations obtained
for St-52 showed a complete lack of correlation for the other steels". The 15
other steels were normalised steels and quench-and-tempered (Q&T) low alloy
steels. These were examined over the following conditions to produce some
modified equations which take account of steel composition.
-

3.1, 8.5, 13 m/s flow velocity


60oC
ca 2 bar CO2
pH 4,5,6

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

For normalised steels a "Cr correction" and a "C correction" can be calculated
separately and together. For Q&T steels the "C correction" has no effect and only
the "Cr correction" is relevant. The Cassandra 98 spreadsheet does not include
the steel composition equations due to the poor correlations obtained when
fitted to the model.
Errors on Corrosion
Rates

Errors in matching equations to data points are defined in the 1995 paper by
"coefficients of determination". This is a complicated statistical function ranging
from 0 (poor correlation) to 1 (perfect correlation). It is not the same as the
"correlation co-efficient" in regression analysis which scales from -1 to 1. The
"co-efficients of determination" in the paper are 0.91 for the main St-52
equations (after excluding the data that doesn't fit), 0.83 for the normalised
steels, and 0.80 for the Q&T steels. For the main St-52 correlation this
corresponds to a standard deviation of 25% on the predicted corrosion rate. This
is the error given in this spreadsheet. Because of this error the predicted
corrosion rates are only shown to one decimal place. A "CRYSTAL BALL"
probabilistic analysis gives a more realistic impression of the error on each
prediction.

APPLYING THE MODEL TO DIFFERENT FIELD SITUATIONS


The De Waard models were all developed using water-only systems in the
laboratory. The 1993 model is intended for nearly static, aqueous conditions and
so for all but the lowest velocities (see page 77) it can be regarded as the
minimum corrosion rate of a water wet region in a gas/water, water/oil, or a
water/oil/gas system. Due to the different hydrodynamics in these field cases
some assumptions are required in order to apply the 1995 model effectively.
These assumptions will only affect the diameter and velocity values used as
inputs in the model. The other inputs will be unaffected. Table 5 gives some
suggested assumptions. However, users are free to develop their own
approaches to meet the demands of their own particular circumstances. Some
of the issues involved in extrapolating the models to the field are discussed in
more detail on pages 27-28.

10

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

Table 5: Applying the


1995 De Waard Model
to Field Situation

Field Situation

Recommended Approach

Water only

use pipe diameter and water velocity

Liquid/Gas

use hydraulic diameter (see p 21)


use true liquid velocity rather than nominal velocity
(see p 22)

Water/Oil

use pipe diameter and total liquid velocity


(n.b. this ignores the possibility of water drop out or
stratification which could lead to the water phase
moving more slowly than the oil phase)

Water/Oil/Gas

use a specialist multiphase program to calculate the


wall shear stress or the "C factor" for the pipe system,
then choose diameter and velocity inputs which
reproduce this hydrodynamic value.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE SPREADSHEET

Units are specified for each parameter listed in this section. The same units are
assumed in all the equations given below and throughout the Cassandra 98
spreadsheet. The spreadsheet has a "units conversion box" at cell P5. The UNITS
spreadsheet allows conversions between a wider range of units. The SALTS
spreadsheet enables conversion between an ionic analysis of brine and the salts
required to prepare a synthetic analogue. The FUGACITY spreadsheet is a database used to calculate fugacity corrections at high total pressures.

Total Pressure

P...total gas pressure (bara, i.e. bar absolute)

INPUT

cells F7 and G7

For a multiphase system this is simply the prevailing local P in the gas. For a
liquid only system it is the P in the last gas phase which was in equilibrium with
the liquid, e.g. the separator gas in the case of a crude oil export line. For a
downhole liquid pressurised above the bubble point then use the bubble point
pressure (Figure 4).
For a simple numeric calculation, enter the P value into cell F7. Cell G7 is then
unused. For a probabilistic calculation using "CRYSTAL BALL", set up a uniform
distribution for P with F7 set as the maximum and G7 as the minimum.

11

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

Figure 4: Schematic
Diagram of an Oil
Production System
(downhole, separator,
export)

%CO2

%CO 2 ...CO2 in gas (mole%, which is same as v/v%)

INPUT

cell F8

For a multiphase system this is simply the prevailing local %CO2 in the gas. For
a liquid only system it is the %CO2 in the last gas phase which was in
equilibrium with the liquid, e.g. the separator gas in the case of a crude oil
export line. For a downhole liquid use the %CO2 in the gas formed at the
bubble point. If this gas analysis is not available then use the CO2 dissolved in
the brine, the Henry's constant, and the bubble point pressure to back-calculate
the "effective %CO2" which would be required in the bubble point gas in order
to sustain the known level of dissolved CO2 (see box at cell P19). Indeed, this
procedure can be followed for any region where the CO2 dissolved in the brine
is known, but the gas analysis is unknown.
There may be occasions when it is helpful to apply parts of the Cassandra
model to a water which is in equilibrium with ambient air (e.g. for pH
predictions). The appropriate atmospheric inputs are P = 1 bara and
%CO2=0.035 mole%. Remember that under these conditions the corrosion
prediction from the model will only relate to the dissolved CO2 component and
not the dissolved O2.
For a probabilistic calculation using "CRYSTAL BALL", set up a normal
distribution for %CO 2 using an appropriate standard deviation.

12

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

pCO2

pCO 2 ...partial pressure of CO2 (bara)


pCO2 =

fCO2

OUTPUT

cell F9

P.%CO 2
100

fCO 2 ...fugacity of CO 2 (bar)

OUTPUT

cell F10

The non-ideality of gases means that at high total pressures the partial pressure
is not an accurate description of the activity of a gas component. The fugacity
is the true activity of the gas component. The 1991 and 1993 models use pCO2
in the main corrosion prediction equations and then at the end apply a fugacity
correction factor (Ffug) to account for fugacity effects. In Cassandra 98 the
equations from the 1991 and 1993 models use fCO2 directly, therefore there is
no need to use a fugacity correction factor (Ffug). The equations from the 1995
model in Cassandra 98 also use fCO2 directly - instead of pCO2. Hence, in
Cassandra 98, it is fCO2 which is used as the primary parameter for all the
equations which consider CO2 as an input.
Fugacity data from the work of R H Newton [5] are tabulated in the
FUGACITY.XLS spreadsheet in the workbook. The Cassandra 98 spreadsheet
uses the input values of temperature and total pressure to look-up the correct
value of the fugacity co-efficient () in the FUGACITY spreadsheet,
fCO2 = pCO 2
The R H Newton data are generally applicable to many pure gases. The data
show fugacity co-efficients as a function of "reduced temperature" and "reduced
pressure",
Tr =

where

T
Tc

Tr is reduced temperature (dimensionless)


T is the prevailing local temperature (oC)
Tc is the critical temperature for the gas (from tables) (oC)

13

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

Pr =

where

P
Pc

Pr is reduced pressure (dimensionless)


P is the total pressure (bar)
Pc is the critical pressure for the gas (bar)

Oilfields produce gas mixtures rather than pure gases. Hence, a difficulty arises
in deciding whether it is the Tc and Pc for methane or for CO 2 that one should
use. In the Cassandra 98 spreadsheet, empirical values of Tc and Pc are assumed
which allow the Newton model to agree with the CO2/methane mixed gas
fugacity data in Figure 5 of the 1993 De Waard paper to 10%. In other words
the De Waard data are used to calibrate the Newton model.
Table 6: Reduced
Temperature and
Reduced Pressure
Values for CO2 and
Methane

CO2
methane
empirical values used to correlate with De Waard data

Tc
(oC)

Pc
(bar)

31
-82
-37

73
45.8
56.7

The De Waard calibration data are valid up to 140oC and 250 bar. The Newton
data extends beyond these levels up to 300oC and 400 bar. The general trends
in the data will be accurate under these extreme conditions, however, the
absolute values are unchecked. For accurate work it will be necessary to
calculate or obtain the correct value of fugacity from elsewhere and then
manipulate %CO2 in cell F8 by trial and error in order to obtain the correct
fugacity in cell F10.
%H2S

%H 2 S...H2S in gas (mole%, which is same as v/v%)

INPUT

cell M8

H2S is not included in any of the De Waard models. It is only used in the
Cassandra 98 spreadsheet in the calculation of solution pH by XLpH (see
below). It can be ignored completely simply by entering zero.

14

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

It is by lowering the solution pH that H2S can potentially increase the corrosion
rate, often in synergy with CO2. In practise, H2S tends to promote FeS surface
films which reduce the observed general corrosion rate but which increase the
likelihood of localised corrosion whenever the film fails. The CO2 general
corrosion rate is often assumed as the worst-case localised corrosion rate for the
regions with no FeS film.
An alternative approximate approach for handling the presence of H2S is to
assume that every 1 mole% H2S has the same corrosivity as 0.01 mole% CO2.
This rule of thumb assumes that 1 ppm dissolved CO2 and 200 ppm dissolved
H2S give roughly equal corrosion rates [6], and that H2S is roughly twice as
soluble in water as CO2 for a given partial pressure [7].
pH2S

pH2S ...partial pressure of H2S (bar)

OUTPUT

cell M9

pH2S = P . %H2S
LIQUID PARAMETERS
Water Chemistry

water chemistry ..ion concentrations (ppm, same as mg/ltr) INPUT cells A15-L15
The water chemistry is used to calculate the solution pH (see below). Enter ppm
values for Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Ba2+, Sr2+, Cl-, HCO3-, SO42-, Fe2+, acetate.
(NB enter the sum of all organic acids as acetate). Enter the %v/v value for glycol
in cell L15. Use the SALTS spreadsheet to check that the total positive and
negative charges of the ions are roughly balanced. Any significant misbalance
(e.g. >10%) may invalidate the pH calculation. Note that ion charges are handled
in general chemistry by using the term "equivalents": 1 mole of positive charges
is equal to one equivalent; in other words 0.7 mole of Ca2+ ions is equal to 1.4
equivalents of positive charge. Some further aspects of the acetate entry are
discussed on p.19.

Total Dissolved
Solids

TDS...total dissolved solids in water phase (ppm, same as mg/ltr) OUTPUT cell M17

15

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

This is the sum of all the individual dissolved ions concentrations. TDS and
[HCO3-] are used in the Oddo & Tomson pH calculation. TDS is also used to
estimate the "salting-out" of CO2 as salinity increases. This will tend to reduce
the concentration of dissolved CO2 and thereby reduce the corrosion rate [8].
The box at X19 shows how to apply the salting-out correction. The procedure
uses "Henry's Law" to calculate the solubility of a gas in a liquid.
pCO2 = K H XCO2
where

KH is Henry's constant (bar/mole fraction)


XCO2 is mole fraction of CO2 dissolved in brine.

The Henry's constant from the De Waard paper is only valid for a low salinity
brine (ca 0.1% NaCl). Therefore, by calculating the true Henry's constant for a
specific brine it is possible to apply a salinity correction to the De Waard
corrosion rate.
The salt-correction procedure first calculates the Henry's constant used by the
De Waard model (equation 28 from the 1993 paper- which is used in the
derivation of equation 13 in the 1993 paper),
log10 K H =

1088.76
5.113
T + 273

where KH is Henry's constant (mole/ltr bar)


Note that this KH equation from the De Waard paper has different units
(mole/ltr bar) from those given earlier (bar/mole fraction). Much of the
confusion over Henry's constants arises from the wide and sometimes awkward
range of units which can be used to express the parameter. For consistency in
this report the De Waard equation for an aqueous solution can be rewritten in
order to maintain KH in units of (bar/mole fraction)..
1088.76
18
log10 K H =
5.113
T + 273
1000

where KH is Henry's constant (bar/mole fraction)

16

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

The true Henry's constant is a function of both salinity and temperature


(Appendix 1) so that,
K true
H (for 0 125C) = (1.77 T + 47.1)

K true
H (for 125 200C) = 250

TDS
+ (45.2 T + 559)
10000

TDS
+ 6500
10000

Therefore, the salt-correction factor, F salt, is,


De Waard

Fsalt =

KH

K true
H

The best way to use Fsalt is to apply it to fCO2 to give an "effective CO2 fugacity".
This "effective fCO2" will give the correct dissolved CO2 concentration when
used with the other equations in the Cassandra 98 model. The salt correction
effect only becomes significant for TDS > 10% w/v.
Brine pH

pH...brine pH control parameter

INPUT

cell F17

Enter the known pH value, or else enter a letter to accept one of the calculated
pH values given in cells F18, F19, or F20

"d" or "D" will accept the De Waard distilled water pH


"o" or "O" will accept the Oddo & Tomson brine pH
"x" or "X" will accept the BP XLpH calculated value.
The accepted value is displayed in cell F21 for confirmation.

17

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

When doing a probabilistic calculation using CRYSTAL BALL then a numeric


value of pH (either known or calculated) must be entered. Use a normal
distribution for the probability adjusting the standard deviation so as to cover
appropriate minima and maxima.
pH(CO2)

pH(CO 2 )...pH of distilled water containing CO2

OUTPUT

cell F18

Equation (8) from the 1995 paper...


pH(CO2) = 3.82 + 0.000384 T - 0.5 log10 (fCO2)
fCO2 is used here rather than the pCO2 quoted in the original paper. The
equation is valid over 10-80oC. It gives the pH for pure water containing
dissolved CO2 at the prevailing temperature and fCO2.
pH(act)

pH(act, Oddo) ..Oddo & Tomson calculated pH in brine OUTPUT cell F19
An empirical equation from reference 9...

HCO 3

+ 8.68 + 0.00405 (T * 9 / 5 * 32)...


pH = log10
fCO2 * 14.5 * 61000

+0.000000458 (T * 9/5 * 32)2 - 0.0000307 (P * 14.5)...


TDS
0.477

58500

1 /2

TDS
+ 0.193

58500

fCO2 is used here rather than the pCO2 quoted in the original paper. The
equation is valid up to 200oC and 1200 bar, but is inaccurate for low values of
[HCO3-]. The Cassandra 98 spreadsheet is set to give an error for pH(act, Oddo)
if [HCO3-] < 50 ppm.

18

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

pH(act, XLpH)

pH(act, XLpH) ...XLpH calculated pH in brine

OUTPUT

cell F20

XLpH is an Excel add-in function for calculating both pure water and brine pHs
with no restrictions on salinities or component concentrations. It was developed
by XTP, Sunbury using well documented code published by the US Geological
Survey (the "PHREEQ" model). The original version of XLpH [10] has since been
updated to include pH2S as an input parameter. XLpH has been validated against
other pH models such as in CORMED and also against literature and recent
laboratory values.
XLpH uses the individual ion concentrations in cells A15-L15. The positive and
negative charges must be approximately balanced (see "water chemistry", p15,
above). XLpH will automatically compensate for any small misbalances by adding
Na+ or Cl - ions.
Enter the sum of all organic acids as acetate. Note that the pH of CO2-containingbrine will differ depending on whether the acetate is added in the form of sodium
acetate salt or acetic acid...
pH of 0.5 M NaCl / 300 ppm NaHCO3, 1 bar CO2, 25 oC plus...
no acetate
5.53

6.8 mM Na acetate
(i.e. 571 ppm)
5.41

6.8 mM acetic acid


(i.e. 422 ppm)
4.17

XLpH assumes that the acetate value entered in cell K15 is acetic acid, because
this is the worst case. If one wishes to assume Na acetate then zero should be
entered for Ac and the molar equivalent of Na acetate should be added to the Na
and Cl entries. Unfortunately a field water analysis will not directly reveal
whether Na acetate or acetic acid should be used to simulate the water chemistry.
This can only be established by making laboratory pH measurements under CO2
saturation and comparing the results with the XLpH model.
Inclusion of the organic acid concentration will always improve the reliability of
a prediction. However, when organic acid data is not available it is possible to
make some rule-of-thumb approximations in order to aid progress. Organic acids
are typically present in formation water at <30ppm. Therefore, for bicarbonate
>150ppm, the presence of organic acids is likely to make little difference to the
calculated pH and therefore corrosion rate. In such cases, an API water analysis
(which omits organic acids) will often suffice. If the formation water is low in
bicarbonate (<150ppm), then there is more chance that organic acids could make
a significant contribution to the in situ pH and calculated corrosion rate and so
an acetate entry should be added to the water analysis.

19

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

Accepted pH

accepted pH ...confirmation of selected pH

OUTPUT

cell F21

This is confirmation of the pH value which has been accepted for the corrosion
prediction equations.
T

T...temperature (oC)

INPUT

cell F24

The prevailing local temperature. When doing a probabilistic calculation using


CRYSTAL BALL then use a uniform distribution for the temperature : set F24 as
the maximum and G24 as the minimum.
Scaling T

T s ...selected scaling T (oC)

INPUT

cell F25

Enter a preferred value for the scaling temperature or enter "a" (or "A") to accept
the calculated value shown in cell F26.
Researchers are still actively investigating the issue of what happens to
corrosion rates at temperatures above the scaling temperature. Previous work
has shown that sometimes the scale films are protective and can reduce the
corrosion rate, whereas sometimes the films are non-protective so that the
corrosion rate continues to increase. Choosing one or other of these options
could on the one hand lead to significant under-design, and on the other hand
to significant over-design. Therefore, until the matter is fully resolved BP
prefers to choose a middle course for design purposes. BP assumes that the
corrosion rate reaches a peak at the scaling temperature and remains on a
plateau at the same value for higher temperatures. The Cassandra 98
spreadsheet follows this approach. In order to achieve this outcome both fCO2
and pH are set to a plateau for T > Ts.
Figure 5: The Possible
Effects of High
Temperature Scaling on
the Corrosion Rate

Corrosion Rate

IFE, Norway
data
BP approach

De Waard
approach

Temperature

20

Ts

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

De Waard Calculated
Scaling Temperature

T s...De Waard calculated scaling T (oC)

OUTPUT

cell F26

Equation (13) from the 1995 paper,

2400
Ts =
273
6.7 0.44log10fCO2

This is obtained by setting log 10 Fscale = 0 (i.e. Fscale = 1) in equation (13) in the
1995 paper. Note that the equation above is expressed in oC and uses fCO2 rather
than the oF and pCO2 used in the paper. The 1993 paper gives a similar equation
to the 1995 paper but uses a factor of 0.67 in front of the log term instead of 0.44.
d...hydraulic diameter (m)

INPUT

cell M24

Diameter

A diameter input value is only required for the velocity equations in the 1995
model. It is not needed for the 1993 model. The 1995 paper actually uses
"hydraulic diameter" rather than a simple pipeline diameter. Let Dp be pipeline
diameter, and let D h be hydraulic diameter, then,
..for gas/liquid pipelines,

Dh < Dp
Dh = 4 A / S

..where

A is the cross-sectional area of the liquid in the pipe


S is the cross-sectional perimeter length of the liquid
region (i.e. liquid/pipe + liquid/gas interfaces, see Figure 6)

..therefore for a pipeline full of liquid, Dh = D p

21

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

Figure 6: Explanation
of Parameter "S" in a
Gas/Liquid System

cross-sectional perimeter length


of the liquid region

There is a box at cell P39 for calculating hydraulic diameters in gas/liquid lines.
The ratio of the liquid and gas cross-sectional areas, or the ratio of the liquid
depth to the pipe radius, is required as an input parameter. Calculation of this
parameter is outside the scope of the Cassandra 98 spreadsheet.
When doing a probabilistic calculation using CRYSTAL BALL then use a uniform
distribution for the hydraulic diameter : set M24 as the maximum and N24 as
the minimum.
Flow Velocity

U...flow velocity (m/s)

INPUT

cell M25

A flow velocity input value is only required for the velocity equations in the
1995 model. It is not needed for the 1993 model. There is a box at cell P5 which
enables calculation of flow velocity from pipe diameter and flow in liquid only
lines. The calculation is more complicated for the liquid phase in gas/liquid
lines, therefore, the box at cell P39 should be used.
When doing a probabilistic calculation using CRYSTAL BALL then use a uniform
distribution for the flow velocity : set M25 as the maximum and N25 as the
minimum.

22

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

Outputs : 1993 De Waard Model


Vcor...Basic
Corrosion Rate

Vcor ...basic corrosion rate (mm/yr.)

OUTPUT

cell E32

Equation (13) from the 1993 paper,

log10 Vcor = 7.96

1710
0.67 log10 (fCO2 )
T

The basic corrosion rate is adjusted by multiplying with the pH and occasionally
the glycol correction factors (FpH and Fglyc respectively). The application of each
of these is discussed below.
For the basic corrosion rate and the correction factors, the values reached at the
scaling temperature are set to remain the same at higher temperatures. This is
to ensure that the corrosion rate reaches a peak at the scaling temperature and
then remains on a plateau at the same value for higher temperatures (see Ts
section above). Hence, the BP approach does take account of scaling at high
temperatures but doesn't use the De Waard scaling factor, Fscale, directly.
pH Correction
Factor

F pH ...pH correction factor

OUTPUT

cell G32

Equations (9) and (10) from the 1991 paper,


log10 FpH = 0.32 (pH CO2 - pH act)
for pHCO2 > pHact
where

...pHact is the actual pH of the brine which wets the pipewall


...pHCO2 is the pH under the same conditions but in pure,
salt-free water

log10 FpH = - 0.13 (pHact - pH CO2)1.6


for pH CO2 < pHact
These equations show that as pHact rises, FpH will get smaller and so the
corrosion rate will fall.

23

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

These equations use pH CO2 instead of the "pHsat" used in the De Waard paper.
pHsat is the pH at which a brine first becomes saturated with either FeCO3 or
Fe3O4 as a result of the steel corroding and building up dissolved Fe2+ in the
solution. The problem with pHsat is that it is difficult to define. Even the De
Waard paper only gives some approximate expressions for one particular brine
composition (10% NaCl). Furthermore, there is serious doubt over the whole
concept of a fixed saturation pH due to the observation of massive
supersaturation effects by IFE (Norway) and also within BP. Dissolved Fe2+
concentrations can often reach hundreds of ppm and can exceed the theoretical
saturation values by orders of magnitude. Hence, pHsat is not a reliable
concept.
Until the pHsat issue is resolved BP prefer to use pHCO2 as an alternative
reference point. It has the advantage that it is well defined and is valid over a
wide range of conditions. Therefore, a pure water system will give pHact =
pHCO2 and so F pH = 1 in the BP approach. Certain conditions can make pHact
< pHCO2 (e.g. high salinity, zero bicarbonate) and so FpH > 1. The presence of
bicarbonate will tend to make pHact > pHCO2 and so F pH < 1.
One way of reconciling these divergent approaches is to say that the direct De
Waard approach uses Fph to derive the initial corrosion rate in a brine before
corrosion products build up and gradually reduce the corrosion rate until it
reaches a steady state. This is the issue discussed in the 1993 De Waard paper.
The BP approach on the other hand does not deal with initial corrosion rates
at all. It deals only with steady state corrosion rates and uses Fph to express the
effect of water composition on the steady state rate. This effect is not covered
in the direct De Waard approach. In essence BP have taken an equation from
the direct De Waard approach and then adapted it for another purpose. Hence,
overall, the two approaches are different but consistent.
Fugacity Correction
Factor

F fug ...fugacity correction factor


Equation (3) from the 1991 paper,

1.4
log10 Ffug = 0.67 0.0031
P
T + 273

24

OUTPUT

cell J32

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

Ffug is not required in the BP approach because fCO2 is used in preference to


pCO2 throughout the calculation and so fugacity has already been accounted for.
Scaling Correction
Factor

F scale ...scaling correction factor

OUTPUT

cell K32

Equation (16) from the 1993 paper,


1

1
log10 Fscale = 2400

T + 273 Tscale + 273

where

... T > Ts otherwise F scale = 1


... Tscale is scaling temperature (defined above)

This factor is not used directly in the BP approach. It is included in the


spreadsheet only for completeness.
Glycol Correction
Factor

F glyc ...glycol correction factor

OUTPUT

CELL H32

Equation (20) from the 1993 paper,


log10 Fglyc = A (log 10 W - 2)
where

... A is a constant = 1.6 to a first approximation


... W is water content (%) of water/glycol mixture

BP only use this factor for cases without corrosion inhibitor. When a corrosion
inhibitor chemical is used or is planned then BP assume that any effect of glycol
is included within the corrosion inhibitor efficiency (normally 90%, but see
discussion on pages 42-48).
Corrected
Corrosion Rate

V'cor ...corrected corrosion rate (mm/yr.)

OUTPUT

cell G34

This is BP's preferred output from the 1993 DeWaard model. It is the base
corrosion rate multiplied by the FpH correction factor. Note that for the basic
corrosion rate and the correction factor, the values reached at the scaling
temperature are set to remain the same at higher temperatures. This is to ensure
that the corrosion rate reaches a peak at the scaling temperature and then
remains on a plateau at the same value for higher temperatures (see T(s) section
above). Hence, the BP approach does take account of scaling effects at high
temperatures but doesn't use the De Waard scaling factor, Fscale, directly.

25

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

Outputs : 1995 De Waard Model


The 1995 De Waard model is derived in a different fashion from the 1993 model,
in particular it does not use the idea of correction factors applied to a base
corrosion rate. Instead, the overall corrosion rate is calculated from two
components : the reaction rate Vr and the mass transfer rate Vm.
Reaction Rate

Vr ...reaction rate (mm/yr.)

OUTPUT

cell G37

Equation (11) from the 1995 paper,


log10 Vr = 6.23

Mass Transfer Rate

1119
+ 0.0013 T + 0.41log10 (fCO2 ) 0.34pH act
T + 273

Vm ...mass transfer rate (mm/yr.)

OUTPUT

cell G38

Equation (10b) from the 1995 paper,

Vm = 2.45

Overall Corrosion
Rate

U 0.8
fCO2
d 0.2

Vcor ...corrosion rate (mm/yr.)

OUTPUT

Equation (2) from the 1995 paper,


1
Vcor

where

26

1
1
+
Vr Vm

Vcor is overall corrosion rate


Vr is reaction rate
Vm is mass transfer rate

cell G39

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

1993 & 1995


Merged Corrosion
Rate

Vcor ...merged corrosion rate (mm/yr.)

OUTPUT

G41

The merged rate simply takes the average of the 1993 and 1995 values. This
allows CRYSTAL BALL to combine the probability distributions for the 1993 and
1995 rates so that one can see the lower and upper bounds on the expected
corrosion rate.
1993
1995
merged V cor + Vcor
Vcor
=
2

The 1993 rate is regarded as the minimum. Velocity effects may increase this
minimum rate as given by the 1995 value. The 1995 model is not accurate at low
velocities so it is ignored whenever it falls below the 1993 value, and then the
merged rate is the same as the 1993 rate.
COMPARING OUTPUT FROM THE Cassandra 98 MODEL WITH FIELD DATA
The validity of any corrosion prediction model depends on how well it agrees
with the measured corrosion rates in the field. However, the comparison is not
always straightforward. This is because the models are developed from well
characterised, clean and stable systems in the laboratory, and they are being
applied to partially characterised, dirty, and variable systems in the field where
the full operating history is not always known. This is no criticism of field
activities. It is simply a fact of life of operations where the aim is to produce
hydrocarbons, not to generate completely rigorous corrosion data.
The discrepancies between the models and r eal field corrosion data which do
exist arise because there are parameters in the field which the model can not take
account of effectively, or at all, e.g. surface coatings (scales, corrosion products,
biomass), crude oil wetting, local hydrodynamics, weld metallurgy.
The industry generally regards the De Waard model as conservative compared to
the field, i.e. it over-estimates the field corrosion rate. Much of this opinion is
based on anecdotal and semi-quantitative evidence - often not published in the
open literature - but it is confirmed by the occasional formal presentation [12].

27

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

BP is currently compiling a database of field corrosion data from a variety of


sources which will be used to assess the Cassandra 98 spreadsheet presented
here.
In the meantime Table 7 gives a comparison of the Cassandra 98 spreadsheet
against new laboratory data; data which were not used in compiling the
model. The final column shows whether the observed corrosion rate falls within
15% of the range encompassed by the 1993 and 1995 models and there is some
agreement. However, the discrepancies show the pitfalls in trying to push the
accuracy of the model too far. It is best used to gain order of magnitude
estimates of corrosive situations rather than absolute corrosion rates to several
decimal places.
Table 7: Comparison
of Model Predictions
with Laboratory Data

T
(oC)

U
(m/s)

fCO2
(bar)

corrosion rate (mm/yr.)


observed
93
95
model
model

correct?

BP 1993 0.1% NaCl, 3 litre flow loop (15 mm ID)


25
1.9
1
5
1.1
5.8
yes
25
1.9
0.27
2.2
0.5
1.9
yes
35
1.9
0.27
3.4
0.7
2
no
BP 1992 Forties brine, beaker test and 5 litre flow loop (15 mm ID)
50
0
0.88
2.5
1.5
0.1
no
50
1.2
0.88
2.5
1.5
3.2
yes
CAPCIS Flow Project Forties brine, flow loop (10 mm ID)
25
3.2
1
1.8
0.6
3.3
yes
50
1.1
0.88
3.8
1.5
3.2
yes
50
1.7
0.88
4.1
1.5
3.9
yes
50
2.5
0.88
2.5
1.5
4.4
yes
50
3.2
0.88
4
1.5
4.7
yes
CAPCIS Flow Project 3% NaCl, flow loop (10 mm ID)
25
3.2
1
6
1.2
7.7
yes
50
3.2
0.88
12.1
3.1
9.2
no
70
3.2
0.88
17.4
5.3
8.4
no
50
1.1
0.88
6.8
3.1
4.8
no
50
1.7
0.88
7.3
3.1
6.4
yes
50
2.5
0.88
8.6
3.1
8.1
yes

28

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

APPENDIX 1 : "Henry's Law" Constants for CO2 Dissolved in Brine


"Henry's Law" describes the solubility of a gas in a liquid,
pCO2 = K H XCO2
where

KH is Henry's constant (bar/mole fraction)


XCO2 is mole fraction of CO2 dissolved in liquid

Henry's constants are dependant on both temperature and salinity and they are
easily found for CO 2 dissolved in pure water [e.g. 13]. The data for brines is less
extensive [14-16]. Figure 7 is compiled using data from all these sources. The
reduced number of points at higher salinity are still sufficient to show that the
data in the 0-10% region can be reliably extrapolated up to ca 30% NaCl. Note
that the 16 and 31% data at 75 and 100oC are actually for MgCl2 in the original
paper but have been plotted in Figure 7 at the equivalent ionic strength of NaCl.
Figure 7: Henry's
Law Constants as a
Function of Salinity
Kh (bar/mol frac)

14000
T (oC)

12000

200
175
150
125
100
75
50
30
10

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

[NaCl] %w/w

The lines in this figure can be represented by the following equations (to within
15%),

29

"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET

K H (for 0 125C ) =(1.77 T + 47.1)

K H (for 125 200C )250

TDS
+ (45.2 T +559 )
10000

TDS
+ 6500
10000

where KH is Henry's constant (bar/mole fraction)


Cell AD31 in the spreadsheet uses these equations to calculate the true Henry's
constant for the input values of T and TDS.

30

The Use of Corrosion PredictionModels


During Design by D M E Paisley
Introduction
The value and purpose of predictive corrosion rate models should be neither
overlooked nor exaggerated. The models (of which CO2 models are one
example) are tools for the Materials Engineer to use during materials selection
studies. The models help to quantify the corrosion risk and to help assess the
impact of various process or production scenarios. However, corrosion rate
prediction models should always be used in conjunction with other tools such as
life cycle costing as well as previous operational experience if the final materials
selection is to offer the optimal balance between cost and reliability. As each
project will have unique economic factors, materials selection should reflect these
and the economic assessment will be as important as the corrosion modelling in
the selection of the final materials. In-depth coverage of techniques such as life
cycle costing and estimating values are beyond the scope of this document but
both techniques are briefly covered in a previous publication [17].
Over the past few years, several design guidelines have been issued by BP for
dealing with CO2 corrosion risks. Each document deals with a specific
application. This more general document summarises all previous guidelines but
can not deal with the specific issues to the level of detail possible in the
individual guidelines. The previously issued guidelines are listed in Table 8.

31

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Table 8: Previously
Issued Design
Guidelines

Report Title

Authors

Report Number Issue Date

A corrosion philosophy for the I D Parker


transport of wet oil and
J Pattinson
multiphase fluids containing
A S Green.
CO2

ESR.93.ER.013

1/3/93

A corrosion philosophy for


the transport of wet
hydrocarbon gas containing
CO2

I D Parker
J Pattinson
A S Green.

ESR.94.ER.016

28/8/94

Assessment of a top of line


D Paisley
versus bottom of line corrosion J Pattinson
ratio for use in the design of
S Webster
wet natural gas pipelines

Branch Report
No 124 421

5/10/92

The application of pH
moderation as a means of
corrosion control for wet gas
pipelines

ESR.95.ER.042

10/4/95

ESR.95.ER.073

22/6/95

D Paisley

The effects of low levels of


D Paisley
hydrogen sulphide on carbon R Gourdin
dioxide corrosion: A review
of industry practice and a guide
to predicting corrosion rates

A corrosion philosophy for the transport of wet oil and multiphase


fluids containing CO 2
This was the first undertaking in recent years to document a BP approach to
defining internal corrosion risks and the basic approach is still followed. It
recommended the use of the de Waard and Milliams model to predict in-situ
corrosion rates along with a 90% corrosion inhibitor efficiency. Much of the
work is still valid but it is in the areas of high temperature scaling, corrosion
inhibitor efficiencies and impact of various flow regimes that the new guidelines

32

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

differ. Most of the recommendations made in these guidelines have been


reproduced or superseded in the present document and therefore the original
guidelines are redundant.
A corrosion philosophy for the transport of wet hydrocarbon gas
containing CO2
This was a companion document to the guidelines on wet oil and multiphase
systems. The basic approach was similar but this document dealt with the
specific wet gas application. Most of the recommendations made in these
guidelines have been reproduced or superseded in the present document and
therefore the original guidelines are redundant.
Assessment of a top of line versus bottom of line corrosion ratio for use
in the design of wet natural gas pipelines
Wet natural gas pipelines operating under stratified flow have two distinct
corrosion environments : (a) the bottom of line which is continually wetted by
condensed water, hydrate inhibitor and hydrocarbons, and (b) the top of line
which is wetted intermittently by condensing liquids. The corrosion rate at the
top of the line is lower than that at the bottom due to the more limited exposure
to corrosive species. Predicting this rate is done by predicting the bottom of line
rate using models in the normal way and applying a moderating factor for the
top of line rate. Up to 1992, BP used a factor of 0.3, i.e. the top of line corrosion
rate was predicted to be 30% of the bottom of line rate. When inhibitors are
used to control the bottom of line rate, the top of line corrosion rate becomes
the limiting rate as inhibitors are assumed not to protect against condensing
corrosion. This report reviewed the top of line factor and recommended the
adoption of a moderating factor of 0.1. For inhibitor efficiencies up to 90%, the
top of line corrosion rate is therefore not the limiting rate. This approach is no
longer valid since BP have moved away from the direct use of inhibitor
efficiencies, as described later in this report. However, the assumption that top
of line rates are 1/10th of the predicted uninhibited bottom of line rates can still
be used. For applications were the 'top of line' corrosion rate is the faster rate
(using the 0.1 moderating factor) then a more detailed evaluation should be
carried out. Such a scenario does not lend itself to the use of simplified
guidelines.

33

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

The application of pH moderation as a means of corrosion control for


wet gas pipelines
This technique is not widely applicable but may find niche applications in
highly corrosive wet gas lines utilising recycled glycol for hydrate control. It is
covered in more detail on p75 but if this technique is of interest the full
guideline document should be reviewed.
The effects of low levels of hydrogen sulphide on carbon dioxide
corrosion: A review of industry practice and a guide to predicting
corrosion rates
This document summarised how low levels of H2S influence corrosion rates
dominated by CO2. The conclusion was that H2S at levels below the NACE
criteria for sulphide stress corrosion cracking (ref MR0175, NACE Publications)
reduces general metal loss rates but can promote pitting. The pitting proceeds
at a rate determined by the CO2 partial pressure and therefore CO2-based
models are still applicable at low levels of H2S. Where the H2S concentration is
greater or equal to the CO2 value, or greater than 1 mole%, the corrosion
mechanism may not be controlled by the CO2 and therefore CO2 based models
may not be appropriate.
Summary of Previous Guidelines
In summary, the old guidelines are generally still applicable. What has changed
is BPs views on the reliability and performance of corrosion inhibitors as well
as the availability of updated models incorporating flow affects. The old
guidelines defined a corrosion inhibitor efficiency of 90% with no scope for
variation. There were also stringent velocity restrictions for use under
multiphase conditions which restricted the energy of slug flow to below 20 Pa,
later raised to 100 Pa. In light of favourable field data, this approach is now
seen as too pedantic and inhibitor availabilities are seen as a better way of
describing the role of inhibitors. These differences in approach are covered in
more detail in the following sections. Furthermore, the corrosion rate
prediction model (p5-30) does not cover some aspects that are important during
design and these are covered in the next section.

34

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Important Factors not Covered by the Corrosion Model


The Probabilistic
Approach to
Predictive Modelling

The modelling approach outlined in this document deals with all the inputs
(mole% CO2, temperature etc.) on a deterministic basis. However, each input
will have a level of uncertainty associated with it and this can have important
effects on the outcome. One way to deal with this it to calculate a range of
output values, (in this case the predicted corrosion rate) across the whole range
of input values. Where the model is dealing with several inputs (temperature,
pressure, CO2 mole %, pH, scaling factor), this can be time consuming. Also, the
value of these inputs will not all vary in a uniform manner. Some will behave
uniformly while others may behave in a normal or log-normal manner.
Calculating the impact of all these variables is time consuming, unless a
programme such as Crystal Ball is used. This is an add-in to Excel and handles
the variability by performing a Monte Carlo analysis. Any number of iterations
can be performed and the output is displayed in terms of a probability, rather
than as a discreet value. In general, a minimum of 1,000 iterations, involving tens
of thousands of individual calculations are required to show the effects of the
variability in input data. A modern PC can perform such a task in a minute or
two.
The important factors to consider are the range and type of distribution assumed
for each variable. If process data are available, this will form an ideal basis for
determining the range and type of distribution but if this is lacking, some
assumptions will have to be made.
Using distributions to define variables in a predictive model can have significant
effects on the outcome.

Worst Case Design

Engineering design traditionally uses worst case inputs so that the final design
will be safe under all foreseeable combinations of events. This approach has
also been adopted when predicting corrosion rates, where pressure and
temperature etc. are used as inputs to the models. In the past this approach was
the only viable one as predicting the enormous range of possible outcomes for
all variables would have been too time consuming but it can result in substantial
over-design. Metal loss corrosion processes do not lead to sudden failure due to
a combination of variables over short time periods (unlike high pressure which
can lead to an instantaneous failure) but rather reflect a combination of varying

35

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

conditions over a longer time period. Using the worst case values is therefore
not a sensible approach, if a range of more realistic values can be handled.
In defining a range of likely operating variables such as temperatures and
pressures, the design values will form the maximum for the respective
distributions but lower values should be included. Defining this range will
require inputs from the Process and Reservoir Engineers. Due to the nature of
the uncertainty, such that all values within the range are as likely as each other,
Uniform distributions are probably the most appropriate for these variables.
The yield strength and wall thickness of linepipe are other examples of the type
of variables that can be treated in this manner. The linepipe properties are
important if using corrosion models to calculate mean time to failure. Rather
than using the minimum values for each, based on the specified material and
the variation allowed within the specification, typical distributions can be
defined for each value. Such variables tend to be distributed normally around
a mean with the specified minimum properties defining a lower bound.
Non-Linear
Relationships

Many variables in corrosion rate predictions, such as the level of CO2 in the gas
phase, are based on best guess or on limited well test data. No attempt is
made to define the uncertainty in these data and this is a major limitation of
deterministic modelling. In defining the distributions of such variables, the
mean value should be based on the best guess or well test data in a similar way
to the deterministic approach. However, a range of possible values should be
considered. In the absence of any other information, the distribution of values
is likely to be symmetrical around the mean with the greatest probability
associated with values close to the mean. The Normal distribution is a familiar
example of this type and should be used.
It should be noted that using a symmetrical distribution, such as a Normal
distibution, does not correspond to using a single value equal to the mean if
the variable under consideration has a non-linear relationship with the outcome.
For example, the corrosion rate prediction model used by BP states that:

36

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Corrosion Rate ( CO 2 partial pressure )

0.67

Therefore, the corrosion rates associated with the CO2 partial pressure values in
the Normal distribution that are greater than the mean value are closer to the
mean corrosion rate than those associated with the values below the mean CO2
partial pressure. In other words, defining symmetrical distributions for variables
whose influence is described by a power < 1 produces a non-symmetrical
distribution of outcomes (predicted corrosion rates). The mean value of this
distribution will be lower than the single value calculated using the mean of the
input variable.
The same applies to all symmetrical distributions, including Uniform
distributions. In the previous section on 'worst case design', the uncertainties
regarding operating temperature and pressure were discussed. In both cases,
Uniform Distributions were used to define the range of possible values. In
corrosion rate modelling, both these inputs have non-linear relationships with
the outcome (predicted corrosion rate). The effect of pressure is moderated by
a fugacity coefficient related to the non-ideality of CO2. Therefore, considering
a range of pressures distributed symmetrically around a mean value will tend to
reduce the predicted corrosion rate.
The effect of temperature on predicted corrosion rates is strongly non-linear. At
higher temperatures, the role of protective corrosion products or scales can be
important. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the effects of these scales but
the bounds of the expected values can be defined using existing models. One
approach would be to use a log normal distribution, defined as follows:
1. The de Waard & Milliams unscaled rate (upper bound),
2. The de Waard & Milliams fully scaled rate (lower bound),
3. A modal value equivalent to the standard BP approach that uses the scaling
temperature to calculate the corrosion rate for all temperatures above this.
Again, the outcome of considering a range of temperatures symmetrically
distributed around a mean will tend to be a lower corrosion rate estimation than
found by calculating a single value at the mean temperature.
Summary of Inputs
to a Monte Carlo
Analysis

Each input into a corrosion rate prediction should be considered and a range of
possible outcomes defined. By consideration of the way in which the value may
vary in practice, a distribution function can also be defined. This may have to
be done subjectively but the following basic rules offer some guidance. In the
following examples, distributions are shown that have been used in the Crystal
Ball software.

37

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

1. Where variations would be due to nature, such as the difference in CO2


levels around the field, a Normal Distribution should be used with a mean
equivalent to the best guess. Figure 7 shows an example of a Normal
Distribution describing the expected variation in CO2 levels, centred
around a mean of 5%.

Figure 7: An Example
of a Normal
Distribution for the
concentration of CO2
in a gas. The Mean
Value is 5 mole% with a
range of 3 to 7 mole%.

38

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

2. Where an input may vary over a wide range but would be expected to be
skewed around the 'best guess' or predicted value, a Log Normal
Distribution should be used. The effects of high temperature scaling
would be an example of this type of distribution, or the pit depth at which
inhibitors fail to control corrosion. Figure 8 shows the Log Normal
Distribution used to describe the critical pit depth with a modal value of 8
mm and a range of 5 to 12mm.
Figure 8: An Example
of a Log Normal
Distribution describing
the critical pit depth.

39

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

3. Where a value may occur equally often within the defined range e.g
flowline operating pressure, a Uniform Distribution should be used, i.e.
all values are equally likely to occur. Figure 9 shows how a range of
flowline operating pressures can be described. In this case the range of
1,000 to 1,200 psi has been used.
Figure 9: An Example
of a Uniform
Distribution Describing
the Flowline Operating
Pressure

Table 9 summarises the assumptions used in a recent probabilistic study into


mean time to failure, based on CO2 corrosion risks. As the study looked at
failure mechanisms as well as corrosion rates, some of the factors apply to the
linepipe steel while others apply to the CO2 prediction model. The 'Standard
Value' corresponds to the value that would be used in a deterministic study.
The Table does not attempt to fully define the distributions in a statistical sense
but more information is available from the authors if required.

40

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Table 9: Summary of
Variables Modelled,
the Values that would
be Assigned Using a
Standard Approach,
and the Range of
Values Used in the
Example Study

Component
in study

Variable

'Standard
Value'

Linepipe

Wall thickness

e.g. 0.75"

Linepipe

Yield Stress

Linepipe

Flow Stress

Range Used

Mean = 0.75"
SD = 0.01
SMYS
Mean = 70 ksi
e.g. 65 ksi
SD = 2.5 ksi
---1.15 x Yield Stress

Distribution

Normal
Normal
Normal

Fluids

CO2 Content

5 mole%

Mean = 5%
SD = 0.72

Normal

Fluids
Fluids

Temperature
Pressure

110oC
1,200 psi

85 - 110 oC
1,000 - 1,200 psi

Uniform
Uniform

Cormed *
0.25 units
Unscaled to
fully scaled

Normal

Corrosion
Water pH
Cormed *
model
prediction
Corrosion Corrosion rate >Rate at scaling
model
scaling ToC
temperature
Inhibitor
efficiency
Inhibitor
efficiency
Inhibitor
efficiency

Inhibitor
availability
Critical pit depth
Inhib. effic. >
critical pit depth

Log Normal

90%

65 - 95%

Log Normal

8 mm

5 - 12 mm

Log Normal

0%

0 - 90%

Uniform

Note * Cormed is a software programme which can predict in-situ pH values of


oilfield brines.
Figure 10 shows the output from a Monte Carlo simulation, using 20,000
iterations to determine the distribution in outcomes (predicted corrosion rate)
due to the variation in inputs detailed above. The most likely corrosion rate is
circa 1 mm/yr. While there is a possibility that higher or lower rates occur, the
probability of such rates decreases the further they are from the most likely
outcome.

41

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Figure 10: Typical


Outcome of the BP
Corrosion Rate Model
Run Using a
Probabilistic Approach

Forecast: Predicted Corrosion Rates


20,000 Trials

Frequency Chart

313 Outliers

.113

2260

.085

.057

.028

565

.000

0
0.00

1.13

2.25
mm/yr

3.38

4.50

Effect of Corrosion Inhibitors


This section represents a significant shift from previous BP recommendations
and therefore is covered in some detail.
Applicability of the
Guidelines

The guidelines on the reliance to be placed on corrosion inhibitors presented


here have been based on experience gained with continuous injection systems.
The success of batch treatments with corrosion inhibitor is less well
documented and generally this approach to corrosion control is less reliable.
These guidelines should therefore not be used when designing systems that will
be protected with batch treatments - this effectively rules out their use for
the majority of downhole applications.
Instead, it is recommended that
relevant operational experience with batch treatments is sought before
designing on the basis of batch inhibition. The authors will be able to assist in
sourcing relevant operational experience.

Inhibited Corrosion
Rates

Previous BP guidelines have dealt with the affect of corrosion inhibitors on CO2
corrosion by assigning a corrosion inhibitor efficiency. This described the
extent to which an inhibitor reduced the predicted rate and a figure of 85% was
originally used, later raised to 90%. This was despite laboratory observations
that showed inhibitors could reduce corrosion rates by 95% or more. However,
it was accepted that in the field, inhibitor is not delivered at the recommended
dose rate for 100% of the time and therefore a degree of conservatism is
necessary when estimating the benefits of inhibitors.

42

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

One major limitation with inhibitor efficiencies is that it allows no consideration


of the effects due to increased dose rates or the development of better chemicals.
It is well known that increasing the dose rates of corrosion inhibitors up to a
certain level reduces the corrosion rate. Figure 11 shows the relationship
between dose rate of inhibitor and corrosion rate on corrosion coupons at
Prudhoe Bay. Clearly, the inhibitor efficiency is not a constant value and
increasing the inhibitor concentration (or changing the chemical for a more
efficient one) enables lower corrosion rates to be achieved.
100

1/corrosion rate (years per mm)

Figure 11: The


Improvement in
Performance of a
Corrosion Inhibitor
with Increasing
Concentration

10

1
40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Corrosion Inhibitor Concentration - ppm

A second major limitation with using a single value for corrosion inhibitor
efficiencies is that they are unlikely to be constant across the whole range of field
conditions. CO 2 corrosion models can handle input values across a wide range
and moderation factors have been developed over the years to reduce the
conservatism due to the extrapolation of the data set used to develop the model.
However, no such moderation factors have been developed for corrosion
inhibitor efficiencies and by applying a blanket efficiency, it is assumed they are
constant across the range of applications.
BP is fortunate in having one of the more corrosive fields in Prudhoe Bay. This
field also lends itself to effective corrosion monitoring due to the use of aboveground flowlines and there is a great deal of data on inhibited corrosion rates.
There is a good relationship between observed corrosion rate and inhibitor
concentration, as shown in Figure 12. In this Figure, the effect of the increased
dose rate of chemical between January 1994 and September 1996 can be seen in
the increased efficiency of the chemical, based on the predicted corrosion rates
using BPs CO 2 corrosion rate prediction model.
43

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

99.80%

140

Corrosion inhibitor concentration


99.60%

120

Corrosion inhibitor efficiency,


defined using BP's model
99.40%

100

99.20%
80
99.00%
60
98.80%

40
98.60%

20

'Average' Corrosion Inhibitor Efficiency

Average Corrosion Inhibitor Concentration - ppm

Figure 12: The


Relationship Between
Corrosion Inhibitor Dose
Rate and Observed
Efficiency at Prudhoe
Bay

98.40%

98.20%
Jan-94

May-94

Sep-94

Jan-95

May-95

Sep-95

Jan-96

May-96

Sep-96

Date

In Figure 12 all efficiency values lie within the range 98.6% and 99.7%,
apparently extremely good performance but in January 1994 only 40% of the
flowlines at PBU had acceptable rates of corrosion, defined as corrosion rates
under 2 mpy (0.05 mm/yr.) based on corrosion probes - see Figure 13. The
improvement in performance from January 1994 onwards correlates with the
increase in average dose rates shown in Figure 12.

44

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Figure 13: Historical


Record of Corrosion
Rates in PBU Flowlines
Showing Improving
Performance Since
January 1994

Percentage of Production Lines with Corrosion Under Control


100%

2 < CR < 5
1 < CR < 2
< 2 mpy by Qtr

80%

CR >5 mpy
CR < 1 mpy

60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%

Note

-80%

Covers 3 phase production


lines >6" in diameter with WLCs
including LDFs, LP, HP and
GHX.

-100%
Jan-90

Jan-91

Jan-92

Jan-93

Jan-94

Jan-95

Jan-96

Prudhoe Bay was constructed before the development of the earlier BP


guidelines on CO 2 corrosion, but if their flowlines were to be constructed today
using the same materials and corrosion allowances, it would infer a corrosion
inhibitor efficiency of approximately 98%. As PBU have now demonstrated that
corrosion control of their system is possible it is clear that inhibitors can be
effective under highly corrosive conditions. This in turn indicates that either:

Higher inhibitor efficiencies can be assumed in more aggressive


conditions, or
Corrosion inhibitor efficiencies are not the correct way to describe the role
of inhibitors in corrosive service.
The former premise does not lend itself to design as it would require a sliding
scale of inhibitor efficiencies and the field data is not available to allow this to be
produced. The latter is the belief of several oil companies who do not use
inhibitor efficiencies, preferring to use a design corrosion rate for inhibited
systems in the range 0.1 to 0.3 mm/year. For mildly corrosive conditions
(~1.0mm/year) the use of an efficiency of 90% generally works well. However,
for highly corrosive conditions (~10mm/year) it would result in a conservative
estimate of the inhibited corrosion rate. This adds weight to the argument that
the role of corrosion inhibitors can not be described by efficiencies.

45

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

BPs data indicate that inhibited corrosion rates of 0.1 mm/year are possible
under optimum conditions of high inhibitor dose rates and optimised chemicals.
This is confirmed with inspection data from PBU where flowlines which have
been effectively inhibited have pipewall corrosion rates of less than 0.1 mm/yr.
Applications Where
Inhibitors Are Less
Than Fully Effective

In general, inhibitors require free and regular access to the steel surface to be
effective. Anything that interferes with this will reduce their effectiveness to low
or negligible levels. Examples of low or stagnant flow situations are vessels,
instrument and drain piping and tanks. Historically, inhibitors have not been
assumed to work well in these environments and other corrosion control
measures are used, such as coatings and/or cathodic protection.
Inhibitors also perform poorly in low velocity pipework and pipelines,
particularly if the fluids contain solids such as wax, scale or sand. Under such
circumstances, deposits inevitably form at the 6 oclock position, preventing
transportation of the inhibitor to the metal surface. Flow velocities below
approximately 1.0 m/s should be avoided if inhibitors are to provide satisfactory
protection and this will be critical in lines containing solids.
The figure of 1.0 m/s is a rule-of-thumb which has been used in the industry
for many years. However, it is now possible to calculate the velocity more
accurately, using an approach developed by the 'Corrosion in Multiphase
Systems Centre' at Ohio University [18]. The work agrees with the rule of thumb
for most black oil systems but allows more accurate quantification if the
minimum velocity is restrictive.

Operating Costs
Associated With
Corrosion Inhibition

The costs associated with corrosion inhibition are driven by the volume of
chemical used per annum and the chemical cost. There may be some incidental
costs associated with the provision and maintenance of injection equipment but
increasingly this is being handled by the chemical suppliers and is therefore
covered by the chemical cost.
In general, inhibitors are most attractive when protecting long lengths of
pipeline while they are rarely cost effective when protecting short runs of
process piping. The dose rates required are dependent on factors such as liquid
throughput, CO2 partial pressure, pH and flow regime. Dose rates are not
dependent on the length of pipeline or pipework being treated and

46

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

therefore the same operating cost is incurred in protecting 10 metres of pipework


as is required to protect 20 km of flowline. Corrosion resistant materials are
likely to offer lower life cycle costs for pipework while carbon steel plus
inhibition tends to be the cheapest method of constructing and operating
flowlines [19].
Table 10: Dose Rates
of Corrosion Inhibitors
into Several North Sea
Export Pipelines,
Based on Total Fluid
Volumes

Field
Beatrice
Brae
Bruce *
Forties Pipeline *
Magnus
Miller *
Nelson Enterprise *
Scott Amerada Hess *
AVERAGE

Dose Rate (ppm)


40
10
46
26
20
35
17
9
25

Note * - These fields deploy concentrated corrosion inhibitors to improve


logistics offshore. The quoted dose rates correspond to the standard product,
manufactured by the same supplier.
At Prudhoe Bay the field-wide average corrosion inhibitor injection rate is 110
ppm, with maximum rates of 250 ppm in certain flowlines, based on water
production (typical water cuts are 50%). These rates reflect the rapid corrosion
experienced in some PBU flowlines in recent years.
The determination of dosage rates in gas systems is not as straightforward as for
liquid filled lines. The three methods which are commonly used to do this are:
1. Based on Gas Flow. This is the most commonly used method and a common
rule of thumb is to apply 1 pint of inhibitor to every 1 million standard cubic
feet of gas (1 pint/MMscf). Actual values are found to vary enormously in the
range of 2 and 0.05 pints/MMscf of gas.
2. Based on the Water Content in the Pipe Line.
This is the method favoured
by corrosion engineers as it usually indicates a very low requirement for
inhibitor. It is common to assume a dosage of 200 ppm of chemical in the
water. This method will often give erroneously low values, especially when the

47

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

water content is very low and/or the pipeline is very long. This is because
the volume predicted will be too low to allow a film to be build up over the
entire surface of the pipe.
3. Based on the Formation of a Protective Film.
This is probably the least
used method but one whch provides a good check on the values obtained
from the first two methods. Typically it is the volume required to form a
0.05mil (1 micron) film over the entire internal surface of the pipe. This
volume is then applied continuously on a daily basis. If the product is to be
applied as a batch treatment the volume is increased by a factor of ten (x10).
In practice it is sensible to do all three calculations and to use the greatest
volume as the starting point. This should hopefully be the most conservative
volume required. Again, highly corrosive duties associated with high
temperatures or CO2 partial pressures will tend to require dose rates towards
the upper end of this scale.
Chemical costs vary from supplier to supplier and may be tied in with the
provision of other services such as corrosion monitoring. However, for the
purposes of life cycle costing a chemical cost of US$8 per US gallon is
reasonable. On this basis, corrosion inhibitor costs 0.84 cents to 8.4 cents per
barrel at inhibitor dose rates of 25 to 250 ppm. There will also be costs
associated with monitoring and inspection. These aspects are beyond the scope
of this document but are covered in detail in SELECTING MATERIALS FOR
WEALTH CREATION: A Material Selection Philosophy Based On Life Cycle
Costs [17].
Predicting the Effectiveness of Corrosion Inhibitors - The Inhibitor Availability
Model
Due to the limitations of corrosion inhibitor efficiencies as a design tool, the
inhibitor availability model has been adopted. This approach can be used to
define a corrosion allowance as follows:
CAtotal = CAinhibited (x years @ 0.1 mm/yr.) + CAuninhibited (y years @ uninhibited rate)
This approach assumes that the inhibited corrosion rate is unrelated to
uninhibited corrosivity of the system and all systems can be inhibited to
mm/year. The approach also acknowledges that corrosion inhibitor is
available 100% of the time and therefore corrosion will proceed at
uninhibited rate for some periods.

48

the
0.1
not
the

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

In the context of this model, corrosion inhibitor availability infers the presence
of a suitable corrosion inhibitor at sufficient concentration to reduce the
corrosion rate to 0.1 mm/yr. The factors that lead to inhibitor availability below
100% are:

Inhibitor injection equipment is not available on Day 1 of operations.


Injection equipment requires maintenance and repairs.
Operators set the dose rate incorrectly.
Chemical is not available when required.
Chemical dose rate is less than optimum. This can be due to a variety of
reasons including lack of response to increases in throughput, or water cut
or sand rate.
Well stimulation fluids such as hydrochloric acid are produced along with
the crude oil and reduce corrosion inhibitor effectiveness.
The corrosion inhibitor injection facilities are used for delivery of other
oilfield chemicals such as demulsifiers or combined products such as scale
and corrosion inhibitors.
Inhibitors are deployed via large bore pipework (instead of via injection
quills) and are not dispersed in the flow stream for some distance, providing
poor protection.

All of these factors and others not listed have lead to less than optimal delivery
of corrosion inhibitor into production equipment in BPX. No asset is immune to
such problems and therefore the maximum inhibitor availability that should be
assumed is 95%. In many instances, a lower availability should be assumed; see,
'Recommended Values For Use in the Inhibitor Availability Model, pp 51.'
Words of Caution
Production data from Cusiana shows that their 12 inhibitor injection skids
averaged 99.2 % availability over the second half of 1996, an identical figure to
that generated at a new gas treatment plant in the Middle East. This is probably
close to the maximum that inhibitor injection units can be available, bearing in
mind the requirements for chemical feedstock, power and the reliability of the
pumps. However, this should not be used as a basis for assuming an inhibitor
availability of greater than 95%. Figure 14 shows the delivery of corrosion
inhibitor against the target rate for a North Sea platform. There was only one
instance when the inhibitor injection system was not delivering chemical - during
March 1993 - but there were also only 3 short periods where the chemical was
fully available with respect to the target dose rate.

49

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Figure 14: The


Availability of
Corrosion Inhibitor
into a Main-Oil-Line
over an 18 Month
Period

100

80

60

Target = 50ppm

40

20

0
January
1993

March
1993

May
1993

July
1993

September November
1993
1993

January
1994

March
1994

May
1994

At the project stage, it is difficult to determine the availability of inhibitor in


future years but relatively easy to ensure inhibitor is available on day one. The
provision of chemical injection equipment is often outside the scope of EPIC
contracts and therefore assets are brought on-stream without the necessary
facilities to inhibit valuable equipment. In previous projects, this has taken up
to 2 years to correct and therefore the best inhibitor availability that can be
achieved will be 90%, assuming a 20 year design life. If the provision of
chemical injection equipment is brought inside the scope of the EPIC contract,
measures can be taken to ensure inhibitor is available on day 1 of operations.
Achieving good inhibitor availability during operations is partly down to system
design and partly due to management of the changing corrosion risk. Inhibitor
injection systems are simple systems and lend themselves to high levels of
mechanical availability. This can be improved further through the use of low
level warning devices on the storage tanks and dose rate gauges such as the
sight glass or more complicated dose rate monitoring systems. Together, these
two simple measures will help to ensure that the target dose rate is achieved
for a high proportion of the time.
Ensuring the target dose rate is correct is more difficult and requires that
constant changes to the target are made to reflect changes in production rate,
water cut etc In extreme cases, this may require weekly tailoring of the target
dose rate. This is where corrosion control programmes can fail and therefore
it is important that the materials or corrosion engineer concentrates on this
aspect.

50

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Figure 15 shows the feedback loop that is required for effective management of
corrosion using chemicals. As chemical inhibition is the only viable method for
controlling internal corrosion, it is important that the deployment of chemical
receives attention.
Figure 15: The
Feedback Loop that
Must be in Place for
Corrosion Control to
Work Effectively

Experience from
other assets

Corrosion
Models
Field
experience

Quantify
Risk
CorrOcean FSM
UT mats

Apply Controls

Chemical
inhibition

Monitor
Effectiveness

Intelligent pig
inspections

Corrosion
probes

Recommended Values for Use in the Inhibitor Availability Model


The degree to which a project or asset can rely on corrosion inhibition will
depend heavily on the investment made to ensure satisfactory operation of the
feedback loop in Figure 15. The different approaches to managing this feedback
loop enable five categories to be defined which in turn allow recommendations
to be made on the values used for inhibitor availability.
In all cases, it is recommended that the inhibited corrosion rate is assumed to be
0.1 mm/yr. The inhibitor availability value will reflect the approach of an asset
to corrosion inhibition. The following categories have been defined to cover the
entire range, based on predicted corrosion rates. Each asset or project may have
equipment corresponding to two or more categories, as the modelled corrosion
rate will vary throughout the facilities. The categories are summarised below and
discussed in detail in the following sections, starting with the lowest corrosion
risk.

51

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Category 1 - Benign fluids where corrosion inhibitor usage is not


anticipated. Predicted metal losses should be accommodated by corrosion
allowance alone.
Category 2 - Corrosion inhibitor will probably be required but at the
predicted corrosion rates there will be sufficient time to review the need
for inhibition based on inspection data.
Category 3 - Corrosion inhibition will be required for the majority of field
life but the facilities will not be available from Day 1, limiting the maximum
effectiveness of a corrosion control programme.
Category 4 - Corrosion inhibition is relied on heavily and will be required
for the entire period of operation. Inhibitor must be available on Day 1 to
ensure maximum probability of success for the corrosion control
programme.
Category 5 - Carbon steel and corrosion allowance with corrosion
inhibition is unlikely to provide integrity for the full field life, thereby
requiring repairs or replacements. Should only be considered once
environmental and economic analyses have shown this to be more cost
effective than using corrosion resistant materials - an option of last resort.
Categories 2 and 4 are illustrated schematically in Figure 16. Categories 1, 3 and
5 can be considered in a similar manner.

52

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Figure 16: The


Concept of Inhibitor
Availability in Relation
to Consumption of
Corrosion Allowances

Spare CA

SAFE
UNSAFE

Derating, repair or
replacement required in
Year 10

Cross section of
pipe or vessel on
Day 1

Field Life (years)

20

Category 4 - red example:


Uninhibited corrosion continues at high rate for 2 years, when inhibition is
started. However, the inhibitor is incapable reducing the corrosion to a sufficient
degree and de-rating or replacement will be required at Year 10. In this case, 18
years of inhibition (equivalent to 90% availability) is not sufficient due to the high
rates of uninhibited corrosion in Years 1 and 2. The availability of inhibitor must
be improved to 95% if carbon steel and corrosion inhibition is to work
satisfactorily and therefore the system should be designated as a Category 4 and
designed and operated accordingly.
Category 2 - blue example:
Uninhibited corrosion proceeds at a moderate rate for 10 years, when inhibition
is started. The inhibited rate is low enough to enable full field life to be reached
with corrosion allowance to spare. In this case 10 years of inhibition, equivalent
to 50% availability is satisfactory. This would place this example in Category 2
as there is ample time to detect corrosion prior to the implementation of a
corrosion control programme.

53

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

In these examples, once inhibition is initiated in Year 2 or 10, it is shown as


being effective at controlling corrosion at 0.1 mm/yr. for the remaining period
i.e. 100% availability for the remaining period. In practice, this will not be the
case and inhibitor availability will be less than 100% due to the reasons
described pp 49. This would see the lines representing the loss of corrosion
allowance becoming step shaped, corresponding to the periods of inhibitor
availability and non-availability.
Figure 17 provides a pictorial representation of these relationships.
Figure 17: A Pictorial
Representation of the
Relationship between
Corrosion Rates, Design
Life, Inhibitor
Availability and
Corrosion Allowance.

Knowns
Uninhibited corrosion rate - from model

Variables
Inhibitor Availability

Inhibited corrosion rate = 0.1 mm/yr.

Corrosion Allowance

Design life e.g. 20 years

In general, decreasing CA:


Reduces CAPEX
Increases OPEX
Increases monitoring

Risk category determines


requirements for:
Corrosion control
Monitoring
Inspection

Velocity limitations relate


to inhibited fluids

Options:
Increase CA, decrease availability
Decrease CA, increase availability

Outcome
Corrosion Risk Category 1 to 5

Fluid Velocity
C-factor < 100, no change
C-factor 100-135, + 1 category

Table 11 shows some examples of how the corrosion risk category is


determined.

54

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Table 11: Some


Examples of how the
Corrosion Risk Category
is Determined.
Knowns:

Worked example for determining optimum


corrosion risk category

Uninhibited corrosion rate = 2.0 mm/yr.


Inhibited corrosion rate = 0.1 mm/yr
Design life = 20 years

Variables:
Inhibitor availability = 0 to 95%
Corrosion allowance = 0 to 8.0 mm

Design as Category 1 System


Inhibitor availability = zero
Corrosion allowance required: (20 x 2.0) + (0 x 0.1) = 40 mm
Not a practical option: corrosion allowance > 8.0 mm
Design as Category 2 System
Inhibitor availability = 49%
Corrosion allowance required: (10 x 2.0) + (10 x 0.1) = 21 mm
Not a practical option: corrosion allowance > 8.0 mm
Design as Category 3 System
Inhibitor availability = 90%
Corrosion allowance required: (2 x 2.0) + (18 x 0.1) = 5.8 mm
Practical option: moderate corrosion allowance and corrosion control, monitoring
and inspection requirements
Design as Category 4 System
Inhibitor availability = 95%
Corrosion allowance required: (1 x 2.0) + (19 x 0.1) = 3.9 mm
Practical option: minimal corrosion allowance with requirements for elaborate
corrosion control, monitoring and inspection requirements
In this example, the choice is between designing as a Category 3 or 4 system.
Both are practical solutions and the optimum balance for a project will be
determined by the relative cost of the extra 1.9 mm corrosion allowance required
for a Category 3 system compared with the additional costs of the control,
monitoring and inspection incurred with a Category 4 system.
In general, long pipelines will be more cost effective when designed to a higher
category while shorter pipelines or process piping will be more cost effective as a
lower category system.

The workbook provided on the disc with these guidelines contains a


spreadsheet for determining the corrosion risk category of a given system.

55

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Designing and
Operating a
Category 1
Corrosion Control
System

Category 1 - Basis of Design


Assumed inhibitor availability = 0%
Maximum tolerable uninhibited corrosion rate = 0.4 mm/yr.
This approach will be valid for applications where the predicted cumulative
corrosion rate over field life can be accommodated by a corrosion allowance.
In practice, this means a maximum predicted corrosion rate of 0.4 mm/yr.,
assuming a design life of 20 years and a maximum corrosion allowance of 8
mm. Longer or shorter design lives will change this rate accordingly. Corrosion
inhibition provides a fallback measure in case the actual corrosion rate are
higher than predicted due to changes in field conditions or unforeseen
circumstances.
Category 1 - Corrosion Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
The fluids must by definition be benign and corrosion rates low. Corrosion
monitoring equipment such as corrosion probes and coupons will respond
slowly to changes in corrosion rates and will be of little practical benefit.
Detection of unexpectedly high corrosion rates remains important as the in-situ
corrosion rates may be higher than predicted. However, rates are unlikely to
exceed the predicted rate by more than a factor of 2 (i.e. 0.8 mm/yr. maximum)
and therefore the inspection programme will be capable of detecting such
attack.
This can provide an early warning system, allowing time for
implementation of a corrosion control programme if required. The usual
requirements of an inspection programme apply. In particular, it should
anticipate localised corrosion at areas such as welds and the 6 oclock position
of low flow rate lines.
Category 1 - Corrosion Control System Requirements
As the design of the facilities does not rely on the use of corrosion inhibition,
there is no requirement to incorporate corrosion injection facilities into the
design.

Designing and
Operating a Category
2 Corrosion Control
System

56

Category 2 - Basis of Design


Assumed inhibitor availability = 50%
Maximum tolerable uninhibited corrosion rate = 0.7 mm/yr.

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Category 2 equates to mildly corrosive fluids where the predicted corrosion rate
is too high to be accommodated by corrosion allowance alone but where
corrosion inhibition should not be required for the full field life.
In practice, this approach is only valid for predicted corrosion rates of up to 0.7
mm/yr., again assuming an 8 mm corrosion allowance and 20 design life. Using
a corrosion inhibitor efficiency of 50% infers that approximately 9 years of
uninhibited corrosion can be accommodated before 95% reliance on inhibition
must be assumed for the remaining 11 years of a 20 year field life. This provides
time for corrosion to be detected via inspection programmes.
Category 2 - Corrosion Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
A design of this type relies heavily on monitoring systems to detect the onset of
corrosion at a rate requiring inhibition. This will require monitoring of process
changes such as temperature, flow velocity and water cut. Direct corrosion rate
monitoring will also be required. However, due to the relatively low corrosivity
of fluids, response from corrosion probes and coupons may be poor.
Due to the relatively low corrosivities of the fluids, inspection programmes will
also play a vital role in detecting the onset of corrosion. Uninhibited corrosion
losses of half the corrosion allowance over a 3 to 5 year period will be detectable
by inspection techniques and will still enable corrosion inhibition to reduce rates
to acceptable levels over the remaining field life. Selecting corrosion allowances
using the BP model will ensure several years of corrosion can be accommodated
prior to inhibition being required.
Category 2 - Corrosion Control System Requirements
The corrosion control system must be capable of being commissioned and to
begin injection as soon as changes in the corrosion rate are detected. This means
that the plant should be designed for inhibitor injection without recourse to a
shutdown. In practice, this will mean that access fittings should be installed to
allow fitment of corrosion inhibitor injection quills at system pressure. Provision
of equipment upstream of the quill such as the pipework, dosing pumps and
storage tanks can be delayed until monitoring or inspection data show that
corrosion inhibition is required.

57

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Designing and
Operating a
Category 3
Corrosion Control
System

Category 3 - Basis of Design


Assumed inhibitor availability = 90%
Maximum tolerable uninhibited corrosion rate = 3 mm/yr.
This category equates to projects or assets that require corrosion inhibition for
almost the full life of the field but do not include the specification and provision
of corrosion control and monitoring facilities into the overall project scope for
use on Day 1 of operations. In practice, this may mean that corrosion control
equipment is not on site and commissioned for 12 months or more and
therefore the reliance that can be placed on inhibition is less than 95%. A delay
of 12 months means that corrosion inhibitor availability must average 95% over
the remaining 19 years to achieve an overall availability of 90%. This limits the
maximum predicted corrosion rate that can be successfully accommodated to
3.1 mm/yr., assuming a corrosion allowance of 8 mm and a 20 year design life.
Category 3 - Corrosion Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
A facility in this category will have a predicted corrosion rate of 0.7 to 3.1
mm/yr. Failure of the corrosion control programme can lead to failure in under
3 years if the corrosion allowance is selected in accordance with the guidelines.
Reliance on the corrosion control programme is therefore high, particularly as
it will not be present on Day 1 of operations. The corrosion monitoring system
must be capable of detecting changes in corrosion rates within weeks if the
target rate of inhibitor injection is to be constantly revised to ensure the overall
availability of 90% is achieved. The recommended techniques that are capable
of providing such resolution are ultrasonic mats and the CorrOcean FSM.
Category 3 - Corrosion Control System Requirements
It is recognised that the corrosion control system will not be available on Day
1 of operations. However, it must be capable of being commissioned without
recourse to a shutdown. In practice, this will mean that access fittings should
be installed to allow fitment of corrosion inhibitor injection quills at system
pressure. The corrosion inhibitor should have been pre-selected and the initial
dose rate should be based on either laboratory trials or similar operating
experience elsewhere.
Provision of equipment upstream of the quill such as the pipework, dosing
pumps and storage tanks should also be planned during the design phase to

58

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

unsure there is adequate deck space and power supplies to enable the system to
be commissioned quickly once it arrives. The system should incorporate dose
rate meters and low level warning devices on the storage tank.
Designing and
Operating a
Category 4
Corrosion Control
System

Category 4 - Basis of Design


Assumed inhibitor availability = 95%
Maximum tolerable uninhibited corrosion rate = 6 mm/yr.
This category applies to equipment that require corrosion inhibition to be present
for the full design life of the field to ensure satisfactory integrity from carbon steel
equipment. The reliance on corrosion inhibition is high and a failure could occur
in a little over 1 year if the corrosion control programme fails. To achieve
inhibitor availability of 95%, the corrosion control system must be operational on
Day 1. To ensure this happens, it is recommended that the provision of the
control system is brought within the scope of the overall project.
Category 4 - Corrosion Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
A facility in this category will be handling highly corrosive fluids and the
corrosion control programme will require constant optimisation to ensure the
corrosion allowance is not consumed prematurely. This may require dose rates
of chemicals to be checked on a weekly basis and the sensitivity of corrosion
monitoring devices must reflect this. The recommended techniques that are
capable of providing such resolution are ultrasonic mats and the CorrOcean FSM.
Category 4 - Corrosion Control System Requirements
The corrosion control system must be commissioned and working on Day 1 of
production. The corrosion inhibitor should have been pre-selected and the
initial dose rate should be based on either laboratory trials or similar operating
experience elsewhere. The system should incorporate dose rate meters and low
level warning devices on the storage tank.

Designing and
Operating a
Category 5
Corrosion Control
System

Category 5 - Basis of Design


Assumed inhibitor availability > 95%
Uninhibited corrosion rate > 6.0 mm/yr.
This category of corrosion risk is beyond BPs recommended practice. Predicted
corrosion rates beyond 6 mm/yr should not generally be handled through a

59

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

combination of carbon steel with corrosion allowance and corrosion inhibition.


Instead, corrosion resistant materials should be considered.
There will always be specific cases where corrosion resistant materials are not
feasible or where previous operating experience indicates that carbon steel will
corrode at a lower rate than indicated by the model. However, the risks
involved in operating such a system are high and repairs or replacement of
equipment should be expected during the field life. This is unlikely to be cost
effective when lost production costs and potential environmental damage are
considered and these areas must be addressed if such highly corrosive fluids are
to be handled or transported using carbon steel.
Category 5 - Corrosion Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
Assuming the technical, environmental and financial factors of operating a
carbon steel facility of this type have been considered and answered
satisfactorily, the monitoring requirements will be similar to those for a Category
4 system.
Category 5 - Corrosion Control System Requirements
Assuming the technical, environmental and financial factors of operating a
carbon steel facility of this type have been considered and answered
satisfactorily, the control system requirements will be similar to those for a
Category 4 system.
Table 12 summarises the recommendations made in respect of each category.
Table 12 also classifies when an intelligent pig inspection should be carried out
for the various corrosion risk categories. These classifications are described on
page 52. These can be scheduled by a variety of means, depending on the
amount of information available for the system. If there is extensive process
and corrosion monitoring data together with extensive operational experience
of the system, it may be possible to schedule inspections based on gathered
data i.e. using ER probe data as a trigger. However, until experience and
confidence are gathered corrosion modelling offers the best method. The
reliance on monitoring and inspection is greater for Categories 5, 4 and 3 than
for Categories 2 and 1 and therefore inspection should occur earlier in the fields
life.

60

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Table 12: Summary


of Criteria and
Requirements for
Corrosion Risk
Categories 0 to 4

Corrosion control system


requirements
Corrosion Inhibitor Corrosion Assumed
Risk
availability rate (max) dose rate

Monitoring requirements,
based on location

System
availability

System
sophistication

Scheduling 1st
inspection

On land,
above Ground

On land,
buried

Subsea

Category 1

Zero

0.4 mm/yr.

0 ppm

None required

No requirement

Routine inspection

Process monitoring
Standard inspection
techniques

Process monitoring
Standard inspection
techniques

Process monitoring
Standard inspection
techniques

Category 2

50%

0.7 mm/yr.

20 ppm

Should be
capable of
commissioning
w/o plant shut-

No special
requirement

Routine inspection

As Category 1 plus
weight loss coupon
ER probes
Intelligent pig run

As Category 1 plus
weight loss coupon
ER probes
Intelligent pig run

As Category 1 plus
weight loss coupon
ER probes
Intelligen pig run

Category 3

90%

3 mm/yr.

50 ppm

Should be
included in basis
of design and
commissioned as
soon as practical

Should
incorporate low
level device and
flow monitor in
injection package

Early inspection

As Category 2 plus
regular inspection of
bends, welds etc
Continual data
logging for probes

As Category 2 plus
FSM or UT mat
system
Continual data
logging for all
monitoring devices

As Category 2 plus
FSM or UT mat
system
Continual data
logging for all
monitoring devices

Category 4

95%

6 mm/yr.

100 ppm

Should be within
scope of overall
project and
available from
Day 1

Should include
low level device
and flow monitor
in injection
package

Early inspection

As Category 3 plus
increased inspection
frequency

As Category 3 plus
increased inspection
frequency

As Category 3 plus
increased inspection
frequency

Category 5

> 95%

>6 mm/yr.

300 ppm

Should be within
scope of overall
project and
available from
Day 1

Should include
low level device
and flow monitor
in injection
package

Early inspection

As Category 4
plus leak
detection

As Category 4
plus leak
detection

As Category 4

61

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Figure 18: A
Comparison Between
the Inhibitor Efficiency
and Inhibitor
Availability Methods of
Determining
Corrosion Allowances

- The aim of the inhibitor availability model is to encompass the good track
record of the inhibitor efficiency model at low to moderate corrosivities but to
remove some of its conservatism in more corrosive systems. The two inputs to
the model are the inhibited corrosion rate and the inhibitor availability and
using different values for these can produce a whole array of outputs.
20

Recommended Corrosion Allowance


for 20 year design life - mm

Comparisons of the
Inhibitor Availability
Model with BPs
Previous Model

Inhibitor availability model based


on inhibited rate of 0.1 mm/yr
and availability of 95%

18
16
14

Efficiency method based


on efficiency of 90%

Corrosion allowance - efficiency method


Corrosion allowance - availability method

12
10

20.0

11.9

2
0

6.9

10.0

1.0

2.4
0.5

2.0

2.9
1

3.9

4.0
2

4.9

6.0

10

Predicted Corrosion Rate - mm/yr.

Figure 18 shows the corrosion allowance that would be recommended using the
two approaches for a 20 year design life. A range of uninhibited corrosion rates
are considered, from 0.5 to 10 mm/yr. which covers the range from mildly to
highly corrosive fluids (less corrosive fluids would probably be handled without
recourse to inhibition). In the inhibitor efficiency example, an efficiency of 90%
has been assumed, in line with BPs previous practice. The inhibitor availability
model uses an inhibited corrosion rate of 0.1 mm/yr. and an inhibitor
availability of 95%. During the remaining 5% of the time, the uninhibited
corrosion rate is used (0.5 to 10.0 mm/yr. as appropriate).
Both models agree well for moderately corrosive fluids, while for mildly
corrosive fluids (0.5 to 1.0 mm/yr.) the availability approach recommends a
greater corrosion allowance. In practice, this may not be important as external
corrosion may require a corrosion allowance of up to 2 mm and would override the allowance recommended for internal corrosion.

62

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

For highly corrosive fluids, the availability model recommends lower corrosion
allowances than the efficiency model. This agrees well with the observed high
efficiencies of corrosion inhibitor under highly corrosive conditions. This will
increase the use of carbon steel as the standard practice is to specify carbon steel
with corrosion allowances up to 8mm and to use corrosion resistant steels for
more corrosive fluids.
Figure 19 shows the relationship between predicted corrosion rate and the
recommended corrosion allowance using the inhibitor availability method. The
example shown is the same as in Figure 18 with predicted corrosion rates in the
range 0.5 to 10 mm/yr. In each case, the corrosion allowance for inhibited
corrosion is constant at 1.9 mm due to the assumption of an inhibited corrosion
rate of 0.1 mm/yr. and the required field life of 20 years. The variation in
recommended corrosion allowances is due entirely to the 5% of the time where
inhibition is assumed to not occur.

Recommended Corrosion
Allowance for 20 Year design
life - mm

12

Figure 19: The


Contribution to the
Total Recommended
Corrosion Allowance
from the Inhibited
and Uninhibited
Portions of the
Inhibitor Availability
Model

Corrosion allowance for uninhibited corrosion

10

Corrosion allowance for inhibited corrosion (95%


availability)

10

4
2

0.5

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

0.5

10

Predicted Corrosion Rate - mm/yr


Figure 19 helps to illustrate how important the period of uninhibited corrosion
can be. In a severe case of a predicted corrosion rate of 10 mm/yr., the
uninhibited period of 5% of the time accounts for 83% of the corrosion
allowance. In this case, each 1% increase in the assumed availability of corrosion
would reduce the total corrosion allowance by 16.6%. Table 13 gives some more
details on this point.

63

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Table 13: The Effect


of the Assumed
Corrosion Inhibitor
Availability on the
Recommended
Corrosion Allowance
for a 20 year Design
Life

Predicted
Corrosion
Rate
mm/yr..

CA assuming
95% inhibitor
availability
mm

0.5
1
2
3
5
10

2.4
2.9
3.9
4.9
6.9
11.9

CA assuming
% reduction in
96% inhibitor corrosion allowance
availability
per 1% increase in
mm
inhibitor availability
2.3
2.7
3.5
4.3
5.9
9.9

3.3 %
6.2 %
9.7 %
11.8 %
14.2 %
16.6 %

It can be seen that highly corrosive systems must assume a high value for
the inhibitor availability if carbon steel is to be used with a practical
corrosion allowance.
Corrosion Rates of Low Alloy Steels
The corrosion rate prediction model presented here is for use with carbon
steels, i.e. predominantly iron with low levels of carbon. However, some
engineering materials contain a wider range of alloying elements such as
chromium and nickel to improve the mechanical properties, such as strength or
toughness. Such elements are commonly found in corrosion resistant materials
and chromium in particular can increase the corrosion resistance of carbon
steels, if present in sufficient concentration. 13% of chromium turns a carbon
steel into a stainless steel, with excellent resistance to CO2 corrosion.
Many claims have been made over the past 5 years of the affect of adding low
levels of chromium (0.5 to 1.0%) to carbon steel. Some steel suppliers claim
that 0.5%Cr can halve the CO2 corrosion rate and certainly in some tests there
does appear to be a benefit. The most consistent benefit seems to be an
improved resistance to mesa corrosion where large, square edged and flat
bottomed pits can form.
However, in other tests no benefits have been
observed and it seems that the benefits may be related to microstructure rather
than composition. Other researchers and oil companies have reported that
inhibitors perform worse on low alloy steels than on carbon steel and therefore,
in inhibited systems, there is no benefit from the addition of low levels of
chromium.

64

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

On balance, BP believe there are no proven advantages or disadvantages in


terms of CO2 corrosion resistance from the presence of chromium at
concentrations up to 1% in steels. It is therefore recommended that no account
is taken of the presence of alloying elements at low levels and no premium
should be paid for such steels. However, if the steel supplier uses low levels of
chromium in the standard product, that is acceptable.
Preferential Weld Corrosion
Preferential weld corrosion is a problem in most systems and production systems
containing CO2 are no exception. Efforts have been made to eliminate
preferential weld corrosion by alloying welding consumables with various
elements such as chromium, nickel and copper at low levels (circa 1%). No
universal solution has been found and there are examples of either weld metal
or heat affected zone (HAZ) suffering preferential attack with most welding
consumables and welding procedures. The problem is not made easier by the
fact that the mechanism for preferential weld corrosion is not fully understood in
CO2 service. The speed of such corrosion suggests there could be a galvanic
driving force.
Even in benign systems where predicted rates of general corrosion are low,
rates of attack at welds can be unacceptably high. This causes a problem when
deciding whether a corrosion inhibitor is required for a particular application.
The traditional approach has been to calculate cumulative wall losses over the
life of the field using corrosion models and if the predicted wall loss is less than
the available corrosion allowance, inhibitors have not been specified. However,
preferential weld corrosion can proceed at rates far higher than predicted and
inhibitors offer the only proven method of improving the reliability of carbon
steel in such cases. There have recently been cases of preferential weld
corrosion causing rapid failures in systems believed to be only mildly corrosive.
Unfortunately, there can be no clear guidance for such systems but inspection
programmes should recognise the risk of preferential weld attack and, if
detected, corrosion inhibition should be initiated immediately.

65

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Effect of Pitting
CO2 models are basically bare surface models with moderation factors applied
to anything that affects this, such as surface scales and corrosion inhibitors.
Moderation factors are used to reduce the predicted corrosion rate due to the
presence of protective or semi-protective species at the surface. In other words,
all such factors predict that the surface will corrode at a lower rate than would
be expected if it was fully exposed to the bulk solution.
Pits are one case where local corrosion rates may be higher than if the surface
was exposed to the bulk solution. The environment at a corroding steel surface
is different from that in the bulk due to the continual transport of reactants to
the surface and products from the surface and this is reflected in the CO2
models and associated factors. These effects are generally beneficial where the
corrosion process is transport controlled but can be detrimental where it is the
transport of inhibitor that is limited. This can be the case in a corrosion pit
where galvanic affects also play an important role. The result is that the growth
rate of deep pits may accelerate. This can be seen as a loss of control by the
inhibitor and may place a practical limit on the size of the corrosion allowance.
For example, if an inhibitor is incapable of protecting pits deeper than 8mm,
once pitting has reached this depth the corrosion rate in the pit will proceed at
the uninhibited rate, i.e. 10 or 20 times faster than the bare surface rate. The
increase in life due to the provision of corrosion allowance beyond 8 mm
would therefore be minor.
In practice, the relationship between pit depth and inhibitor efficiency is not
fully understood. Field experience indicates that pits below 5 mm behave
normally while pits deeper than this may corrode at a higher rate. Pitting rates
up to 3 times faster than predicted have been quoted in a variety of systems.
Certainly, if corrosion has reached 8 mm it is likely that the local environment
within a pit will be significantly divorced from the bulk environment and hence
transportation of inhibitor may be unreliable. Moreover, if corrosion has caused
such metal loss, the corrosion control of the system must be poor and providing
extra steel is unlikely to provide a satisfactory answer.
As corrosion allowance is often consumed via pitting or localised corrosion the
importance of pits should be considered when selecting the optimum corrosion
allowance.

66

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Choosing an Optimum Corrosion Allowance

The term corrosion allowance creates the impression of a uniform wastage over
time leading to the gradual and controlled reduction in wall thickness. In
practice, this is unlikely to be the case and the role of the corrosion allowance
is to provide protection against the periods when corrosion control is poor and
short term corrosion rates are high, i.e. poor inhibitor availability in the case of
inhibited systems. As there is always uncertainty in the rate of corrosion (and
therefore time to failure), specifying a corrosion allowance is a compromise
between capital costs and reliability. Greater corrosion allowances incur greater
costs but confer greater reliability. For mildly corrosive systems, low corrosion
allowances of 1.5 to 3 mm are justified as they are protecting against the
possibility of internal and external corrosion. In highly corrosive systems, active
corrosion is almost certain to occur and therefore greater corrosion allowances
should be specified to increase the mean time to failure.
Some Operators specify maximum corrosion allowances and BP has tended to
use the figure of 8 mm for some years. The reasons for this are:
1. Corrosion tends to be localised pitting attack and corrosion inhibitors
perform poorly in deep pits. Therefore, extra corrosion allowance provides
little benefit beyond approximately 8mm.
2. Carbon steel will not provide a long term solution for highly corrosive
systems and if several millimetres of corrosion allowance have been lost,
corrosion control of the system has not been achieved.
3. Intelligent pigs are sensitive to corrosion damage of circa 10% of wall
thickness. This makes it difficult to detect the onset of corrosion in thick
walled pipe which in turn means that corrosion may continue for some
time before detection. It is preferable to detect corrosion early and remedy
the situation and therefore thin walled pipe is preferable for detection of
corrosion.
4. Welding and handling thick walled pipe is difficult and thick sections may
require post weld heat treatment. Cost increases are therefore greater than
the incremental increase in wall thickness.
The figure of 8mm should not be seen as fixed. Each project may have different
drivers in terms of the optimum balance between opex and capex costs and in
certain cases, replacement of flowlines may be more economically attractive than

67

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

high capital costs in Year 1. For one recent BPX project it was decided that
localised corrosion was the main concern for the flowlines and therefore the
definition of corrosion allowance should reflect this. BPs first pass defect
assessment criterion for pipelines allows 20% of the pressure containing wall to
be lost due to localised corrosion and the design of the corrosion allowance
took this into account. This approach reduced the corrosion allowance by circa
1.5 mm and saved US$1.16 million from the cost of the flowline network. In
effect, the traditional corrosion allowance was reduced from 8 mm to 6.5 mm
but as the corrosion was expected to be localised, there would be 8mm of
pipewall available for localised corrosion before raising any concern over
integrity.
In other cases, a corrosion allowance greater than 8mm may be justified but it
should be recognised that the additional costs may not be reflected in the
incremental increase in reliability.
Use of Common Sense
In specifying a corrosion allowance, the Materials Engineer should not be too
pedantic. Projects often define three or more nominal corrosion allowances
such as 1.5 mm, 3 mm and 8 mm. Process streams are categorised as mildly
corrosive, corrosive or highly corrosive using models or experience and the
appropriate corrosion allowance added to the pressure containing wall
thickness defined using the appropriate code. The total required wall thickness
is then reviewed against the available wall thicknesses with the next greater
thickness being selected. It may be the case that the corrosion allowance just
takes the total wall thickness out of one wall thickness range and into another,
increasing significantly the wall thickness and the effective corrosion allowance.
Example
The linepipe specification API 5L lists wall thicknesses (WT) in 1.6 mm
increments for 16 linepipe in the range 12.7mm to 14.3mm. If the total
required WT including 6 mm corrosion allowance is 12.8mm, standard practice
would be to select the 14.3 mm size. The excess 1.5 mm would add
circaUS$11,500/km to the cost of the 16 flowline i.e. in excess of US$1 million
for a 100km line. As the selection of the nominal corrosion allowance is based
on imprecise models, the Materials and Pipeline Engineers should use their

68

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

judgement in the selection of the final wall thickness. They may decide that a
corrosion allowance of 5.9 mm is acceptable, allowing the 12.7 mm WT linepipe
to be specified.
Applying Models to Different Flow Regimes
Effect of Water Cut

Figure 20: The


Application of a Model
Developed in WaterOnly Systems to Other
Water-Containing
Systems

CO2 predictive models - such as the one in this report - are based on laboratory
studies, typically developed in water only systems. Various moderation factors
have been applied over the years, reducing the predicted rates as experience
showed them to be too conservative in their basic forms. In the approach
covered here, the water cut is ignored thereby treating the pipeline or process
equipment as if it was transporting 100% water. It may appear a large step to
apply a model developed using laboratory data in water only systems to the field
where hydrocarbons account for the majority of the throughput.
0.1 - 13 m/s
20 - 90oC
0.3 - 20 bara CO2

Water only...

(0.1 m/s, 90oC,


>6.5 bara CO2
excluded!!)

Gas / Water

Multiphase
Oil / Water

However, this is not the vast over-simplification it may seem. Water wetting of
the pipewall can occur at both high and low water cuts. This is despite the
widely shown plot, reproduced in Figure 21 in which a relationship is proposed
between water cut and corrosion rate based on water wetting. This relationship
is not reliable in practise because water cuts below 1% have been known to
cause rapid failures. This simply reflects the fact that the average corrosion rate

69

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

in a system is rarely of interest: it is the maximum rate that determines time to


failure. If at a water cut of 1%, 1% of the equipment is water wet 100% of the
time then clearly there will be no effect of water cut on the maximum potential
corrosion rate and hence time to failure.
Figure 21: An Often
Presented Relationship
Between Water Cut
and Corrosion Rate

Corrosion Rate

III

II

I
0
0

100
Water Cut, %

Hilly terrain, changes in elevation or changes in flow direction can induce water
hold-up in wells, flowlines and process equipment. Local water cuts can
exceed 50% despite input water cuts of 1% or less. The water in dips may
remain for weeks or months until an increase in throughput sweeps some of it
out and a temporary increase in water production is seen at the outlet of the
system. It is therefore unwise to rely on the formation of emulsions or similar
dispersions to provide fully oil wet surfaces. It is for this reason that BP ignores
the water cut in determining system corrosivity.
Effect of Flow
Regime

70

CO2 corrosion rates are dependent on flow regime and flow velocity, hence the
attempt to incorporate the effects of flow into the 1995 de Waard and Milliams
model. In uninhibited corrosion, flow effects are of secondary importance, after
the important controlling factors such as temperature, pressure, CO2
concentration and pH and for this reason BP have retained the earlier de Waard
and Milliams model as the basis for their CO2 modelling. The 1995 model is
included if the sensitivity to flow velocity changes are considered important.

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Figure 22: Different


Flow Regimes
Experienced at Various
Combinations of Gas
Flowrate and Liquid
Flowrate

Liquid Flowrate

Bubble

Slug

Stratified

Annular

Stratified Wavy

Gas Flowrate

Each flow regime will cause different rates of corrosion under otherwise
identical conditions and the 1995 de Waard and Milliams model offers the best
method of assessing this.
When considering inhibited corrosion rates under multiphase flow, the
approach proposed on pp76 should be followed. In summary, velocities
corresponding to C factors below 100 require no special consideration.
Velocities corresponding to C factors between 100 and 135 raise the Category of
the corrosion risk, e.g. from 3 to 4. Velocities corresponding to C factors greater
than 135 should not be considered unless there is significant operating
experience to justify this.

71

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Applying Models to Transportation Equipment


Crude Oil Export Pipelines
Crude oil transport pipelines or main oil lines (MOL) fall into two categories:
1. The fully stabilised type such as the Trans Alaskan Pipeline System and
OCENSA in Colombia.
2. The partially stabilised type, such as Forties and Beatrice MOLs.
The corrosivity of the fluids is different in each case and pipelines should be
designed and operated accordingly.
Fully Stabilised
Crude Oil Export
Pipelines

In the case of fully stabilised lines, the crude oil is processed down to
atmospheric pressure and may remain in tanks for some period prior to
shipping. This allows water cuts to reach levels of 0.1 to 1.0%. It also allows
the acid gases present in the reservoir to vent and reach very low
concentrations. For example, the effective partial pressure of CO2 in an
associated gas containing 2 mole% CO2 is only 0.3 psia at atmospheric pressure.
The low levels of acid gases mean the potential corrosivity of the water phase
will be low.
Fully stabilised crude oil can therefore be considered as a non-corrosive product
and typically such pipelines are constructed with minimal or zero corrosion
allowance. When a corrosion allowance is specified, it is often due to concerns
over external corrosion rather than internal attack. Corrosion inhibitor is not
normally deployed into fully stabilised crude oil lines.

Partially Stabilised
Crude Oil Export
Pipelines

72

In the partially stabilised case, the crude oil is partially stabilised (typically
offshore) and exported for final processing at a remote location (typically
onshore). The crude oil in the export pipeline therefore remains corrosive as
the acid gases are not vented down to negligible levels and any associated
water will be corrosive. The partial pressure of gases will depend on the
pressure of final processing. For example, at 7 bara the partial pressure of CO2
in an associated gas containing 2 mole% would be 0.14 bara, or 2 psia.

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Final processing pressures vary. Forties fluids are processed down to 4.5 bara
while the value on Bruce is 12 bara and Brae is 16 bara. The typical range is
from 1.4 bara to 20 bara and the corrosivity of the fluids will vary accordingly,
along with the CO2 concentrations, temperatures etc.
As the crude oil does not pass through tankage offshore, water cuts in partially
stabilised lines are typically higher than in fully stabilised lines. Water cuts can
reach 15% or even higher if water handling is a constraint but more typical levels
are around 1%.
With the removal of the majority of the CO2 and water, partially stabilised crude
oil is significantly less corrosive than the non-stabilised multiphase fluids
transported in flowlines, but it can not be considered as non-corrosive. The
original Forties 30 and existing Beatrice export lines are adequate proof that
partially stabilised crude oil is corrosive. Such pipelines should therefore be
designed and operated to deal with internal corrosion. Typically a corrosion
allowance of 2 to 3 mm may be specified and corrosion inhibitor should be
added on a continuous basis.
It is important to note that although the pressure of the oil is raised downstream
of the crude oil shipping pumps, the partial pressure of CO2 does not increase.
The crude oil is single phase and any remaining associated gas is in solution see page 11.
Ideally, the velocity should be maintained above 1 m/s - see page 46.
Natural Gas Pipelines
Dry Gas Pipelines

To minimise or eliminate the risk of corrosion in gas pipelines it has been (and
still is) common practice to dry it prior to transportation. The two most common
methods involve either contacting the wet gas with dry glycol or passing it
through molecular sieves.
The target water content of the 'dried' gas is usually 2lbs of water for every
million standard cubic feed of gas (2lbs/MMscf).
However, both methods have their problems as shown by Figure 23 which
shows the water content of a dry gas downstream of the glycol contactors.

73

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

0.25

Specification
2 lbs/mmscf
0.20

Probability

Figure 23: The Actual


Water Content of a 'Dry
Gas' Downstream of the
Glycol Contactors Over
a 2 Year Period. The
Design Specification
was 2lbs/MMscf.

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Water Content - lbs/mmscf

The data was gathered from a BP Asset over a two year period and it is clear
that the target value of 2lbs/MMscf was rarely achieved.
Thus some care should be taken when relying on the drying of gas for corrosion
control and each system should be considered on a case by case basis.
Wet Gas Pipelines

As part of the drive to minimum offshore processing, gas transportation lines


are increasingly being designed to operate wet i.e. the gas either enters the
pipeline below its water dew-point or will drop below this temperature at some
location along the pipeline. Once free water is present, corrosion becomes a
concern and this must be taken into account during the design and operational
phases of the pipelines life. The severity of corrosion and the potential means
for controlling it depend on the operating scenario and flow regimes.

Corrosion Inhibitor
Deployment in Wet
Gas Pipelines

If a wet gas pipeline is not going to be treated with a recycled hydrate inhibitor,
corrosion inhibition is the only practical corrosion control method. The
approach to design is identical to that for oil pipelines except that there is no
pH buffering capacity in the condensed water in wet gas lines. This must be
taken into account when performing the corrosion rate predictions.
If the flow regime is stratified or wavy, there may be a concern that corrosion
inhibitor deployed into the continuous phase at the bottom of the pipe does not
get transported to the top of line location. The corrosion processes occurring
at the two locations are different as the transportation of water to, and

74

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

subsequent removal of corrosion products from the top of line location is limited
by the quantities of condensing water. There is no continuous water phase at
this location in stratified/wavy flow and water is only present via condensation
on to the pipewall. Under these circumstances, the water quickly becomes
saturated with corrosion products, effectively stifling further corrosion and this
can be used to advantage in the design of wet gas pipelines.
The term top of line/bottom of line (TOL/BOL) ratio is used to describe the rate
at which the top of line corrodes relative to the bottom of line, with the bottom
of line rate being calculated using a standard CO2 modelling approach. A
TOL/BOL ratio of 0.1 is used by BP. This does not rely on inhibitor availability
and can therefore be assumed to occur 100% of the time. The bottom of line
location requires inhibition and the predicted rate estimated using the availability
model. The higher of the two rates will determine the required corrosion
allowance.
Corrosion Inhibitor
and Glycol
Deployment in Wet
Gas Pipelines

Glycol (or methanol) is often used as the hydrate preventer on a recycled basis,
although this traditional approach to hydrate control is increasingly being
replaced by once through, low dose systems. However, recycled systems will
remain valid for older systems or those operating well within the hydrate
envelope where low dose chemicals are not applicable. The use of glycol is
beneficial as it is a corrosion inhibitor, albeit a relatively poor one. If glycol is
used without the addition of corrosion inhibitor, there will be some benefit from
the glycol. This is hard to quantify but Shells work produced a glycol correction
factor which is described on page 25.
However, if glycol and inhibitor are both used there will be little additional
benefit from the glycol and it should be ignored for design purposes. Only the
inhibitor availability factor should be used.
The use of a glycol (or methanol) recycling system offers the opportunity for an
alternative form of corrosion control - pH moderation. This technique has been
used by Elf since the 1970s and works by artificially raising the pH of the water
in the pipeline to high values (circa 6.0). This limits or arrests CO2 corrosion and
therefore the pipeline can be constructed with reduced corrosion allowance.
The system is economical to operate as the pH moderator, typically bicarbonate
or MDEA is carried in the glycol and remains through the glycol drying process.
However, the technique should only be used along with corrosion inhibition as
pH moderation is not entirely successful at preventing localised corrosion. In
effect, pH moderation expands the application of carbon steel to more aggressive
environments i.e. hotter and/or higher CO2 partial pressures.

75

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

However, the technique has some drawbacks:


1. pH moderation relies on the existence of glycol recycling to provide the
transport medium and to recycle the pH moderator. With the modern
trend towards once-through, low dose hydrate inhibitors many new wet
gas pipelines will not have glycol recycling facilities. Once-through
dosing of pH moderator is unlikely to be economic as 2,500 ppm
bicarbonate or 500 ppm MDEA may be required in the water phase to
achieve the required pH shift. MDEA costs circa US$4 per kg and
therefore treating condensed water would cost circa 30 cents per barrel on
a once through basis.
2. If formation water is produced along with the gas then the artificially high
pH will increase the scaling tendency of the water. This can have serious
consequences and may require the termination of the pH moderation
programme.
Multiphase Flowlines
Multiphase flowlines are the most arduous application for corrosion inhibitors.
This mode of transporting fluids is set to increase further in BP with the
development of long reach tie-backs to existing platforms and large
developments on land such as Colombia and Algeria. Flowlines are an arduous
application for corrosion inhibitors for two main reasons:
1. The fluids are unstabilised and therefore contain acid gases such as CO2
at high partial pressures, along with water. In contrast, export pipelines
transport more benign fluids that have had the bulk of such corrodents
removed.
2. The flow regimes in multiphase flowlines vary widely and the velocities
and attendant liquid forces can reach high levels. This increases
uninhibited corrosion rates and increases the concentration of inhibitor
required to achieve acceptably low corrosion rates.
Very low velocities are also a concern and the optimum mean velocity for such
flowlines is believed to lie between 1 and 10 m/s. Below this velocity range,
water drops out and deposits can accumulate at the 6 oclock position,
preventing inhibitor reaching the pipewall - see page 46. Corrosion inhibitors

76

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

are not effective under such circumstances, particularly if there are solids or
bacteria in the line and therefore corrosion rates are increased.
Corrosion rates can be controlled above 10 m/s, but at higher operating costs.
Figure 24 gives a graphical representation of the affects of flow velocity on
inhibited CO2 corrosion rates.

Effect of
increasing [CI]

Corrosion Risk

Figure 24: A
Graphical
Representation of the
Effect of Flow Velocity
on Inhibited CO2
corrosion.

High risk of water drop


and under-deposit
corrosion

0
0

10

15

20

Flow Velocity - m/s

Figure 24 is only a qualitative representation and velocity is not the only criterion
controlling the flow element of CO2 corrosion. Mixture density is also important,
with denser fluids giving rise to higher corrosion rates. Higher velocities can
therefore be tolerated in systems with high GORs than in similar systems with
low GORs. It is often convenient to design using C-factors, defined in API RP
14E because the erosional velocity is often the limiting velocity for flowlines.
Although C-factors specifically relate to erosion and not corrosion they usefully
represent the forces acting on the pipewall and therefore the forces causing
enhanced corrosion rates. For carbon steel, BP use a C factor = 135.
MaximumFlow Velocity =

C
Mixture density

..where maximum flow velocity is in ft/s and mixture density is in lb/ft3.

77

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

The relationship between flow and corrosion rate will be unique for each
system and will be difficult to estimate at the design stage. However, the
designer should accept that high velocities increase the risk of high corrosion
rates and should design accordingly. The level and sophistication of corrosion
control and monitoring systems must reflect the potential for corrosion to occur
and this in turn will depend heavily of the flow regime. This should be handled
using the approach developed for Inhibitor Availability, based on categories 1
to 5. The impact of flow velocities corresponding the C factors > 100 can be
considered as an increase in risk and the category defined on the bais of
predicted corrosion rates changed accordingly - see Table 14.
Table 14: The Impact
of High Fluid Velocities
on the Categorisation of
Corrosion Risk

Design
Operation

<100

C Factor
100 to 135

>135

No change
Yes

+ 1 Category
+ 1 Category

No
Possibly1

Note that operating at C factors > 135 should only be considered where there
is sufficient operational experience in the asset to confidently state that erosion
or corrosion are not occurring at unacceptable rates at C=135. C factors > 135
should not be used during design but may be considered as a de-bottlenecking
measure if successful experience has been gained. 'Successful experience' is
likely to require several years of operation with at least one intelligent pig
inspection of the flowline after operating at close to C = 135.

78

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Intelligence Pigging Guideline


Within BP, there are no fixed policies on the frequency of intelligence pig surveys
(IPS) of pipelines and each individual case should be examined on merit. It is
important to note that intelligence pigging surveys are just one element of a
toolbox for the management of pipeline integrity. They are complementary to
the full range of other pipeline integrity and monitoring techniques, for example,
wall thickness checks, corrosion coupons and corrosion inhibitor injection
monitoring. It is recommended that pipelines at risk of corrosion are designed
to be piggable, with the requirement for permanent pig traps being determined
according to the required frequency for operational pigging and intelligence
pigging.
For any pipeline, the need for, and frequency of inspection depends on a
number of factors:

the known or anticipated corrosion risk (which this document deals with);
the sensitivity of the inspection tools available to detect the anticipated
defect types;
the corrosion allowance and whether the pipeline can be accessed for
repairs;
the environmental risk;
local pipeline regulations;
the strategic importance of the pipeline and the associated political
environment;
There are three main types of pipeline inspections which may be categorised as
follows:

A Baseline Survey;
an Early Inspection; and
a Routine Survey.
Baseline Survey

A Baseline Survey is carried out prior to pipeline commissioning, with the


principal objective of detecting material defects and construction anomalies.
Baseline surveys are primarily intended to detect dents, or wrinkles, and so
geometry pigs are normally used (e.g. caliper device), these pigs are not
normally considered to be intelligence pigs.

79

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

BP would not generally recommend a baseline intelligence pig survey for


pipelines. It is normally considered that the pipeline hydrotest is a sufficient
demonstration of the pipelines initial fitness for service. A true baseline
intelligence pig survey may be required for pipelines transporting highly sour
fluids, where there is some doubt over the steels ability to resist HIC. In these
circumstances it may be justified to inspect for initial laminations in the pipeline
steel. Such laminations may grow or blister during operation, and so a baseline
measurement of such features can prove useful in assessing the integrity of the
pipeline in later life. BP has not found it necessary to carry out a baseline IPS
in any of its pipelines. However, there is increasing pressure on the assets from
regulators to carry out such inspections. A normally satisfactory compromise is
the Early Inspection.
Early Inspection

An Early Inspection would be carried out 1 - 3 years after commissioning. The


objective of this survey is to verify the absence of corrosion in a pipeline where
a new corrosion prevention strategy is being implemented, or when the
operating conditions are particularly severe. In the context of this document,
pipelines in corrosion categories 4 and 5 would certainly warrant an early
inspection. The case for a category 3 pipeline having an early inspection
should also be considered.
An early inspection is similar to a baseline inspection, but it is carried out after
some operating life has been accumulated. The objective of an early inspection
is to confirm that the corrosion management philosophy is operating
satisfactorily before any significant damage occurs to the pipeline. For example,
an early inspection of the Miller Gas System (sour with high CO2) was carried
out after approximately 1 year of operation and this confirmed satisfactory
corrosion management performance. The data from an early survey can be used
later in the pipelines life to provide information on when the damage was
initiated.

Routine Survey

80

A routine inspection is carried out to confirm the on-going integrity of a


pipeline which has a known corrosion risk. Clearly, the frequency of this
inspection will vary from pipeline to pipeline. This survey is used to monitor
known defects or confirm the absence of significant corrosion. Pipelines in
corrosion categories 1 to 5 should all be considered for routine surveys.

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

When To Inspect
a Pipeline

Where it is feasible, it is recommended that a caliper inspection is carried out on


each new pipeline during the commissioning procedure. This will confirm the
good workmanship of the pipeline and remove concern about dents in the
pipeline. Dents can pass hydrotest, but fail by fatigue later during the life of the
line.

New Pipelines

Baseline intelligence pig surveys are not generally recommended.


To determine when to first inspect a new pipeline, it is necessary to consider the
corrosion risk and the uncertainty in prediction of the corrosion rate. Three
simple principles can be used to determine when to carry out the first pig
inspection:

It should not be before a time when one would expect to detect some
corrosion if the corrosion rate is in line with the pessimistic estimate;
It should be before our pessimistic estimate of when the first failure may
occur;
It should be before we expect widespread corrosion to occur, which
would result in major repair programme.
To quantify this timing, the pipeline operator can apply a number of methods of
increasing sophistication, reliability calculations are suited to this type of
assessment.
However, as a first pass the following simple method is
recommended:
Make an estimate of the most likely and the pessimistic corrosion rates. These
should be based on the corrosion model described here, taking in to account the
influence of corrosion inhibitors (if applicable) and the likely effectiveness of the
inhibitors. The probabilistic approach to corrosion monitoring can be helpful
here, taking the P50 and P90 (or P10) corrosion rates as the most likely and
pessimistic rates.
The first inspection should not be before.
Calculate the time taken for the pessimistic corrosion rate to reach 1mm in depth
or the detection threshold of the inspection tool being used (typically 10% of
nominal wall thickness).
Use the greater time period as the earliest
recommended inspection time.

81

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

The first inspection should not be after.


Calculate the retiral thickness of the pipeline according to the ruling pipeline
design code - the code thickness.
Calculate the tolerance of the pipeline to long corrosion defects. For pipelines
operating at 72% SMYS, the BP Guidelines for the assessment of corroded pipe
allow a further 20% loss of the Code thickness (BP's "Transmission Pipelines to
BS8010", 1st June 1992). The BP 1st Pass thickness is normally calculated as
0.8 * code thickness.
Calculate:

the time that the pessimistic corrosion rate will reach the BP 1st Pass
Thickness,
half the time that the best guess corrosion rate will reach the BP 1st Pass
Thickness.
The earliest of these dates is the latest intelligence pig inspection date.
The procedure is shown pictorially in Figures 25 and 26.
Figure 25: A Pictorial
Representation of how
to Determine the
Timing of a Pig
Inspection Run.

Corrosion Levels

Wall Thicknesses
Nominal

SAFE

Detection Level
Design
Allowance
Actual
Allowance

Code

SAFE
UNSAFE

Failure
Point

best
estimate

Rupture

pessimistic
estimate

FAILURE

0
earliest
latest
inspection inspection
date
date (1)

82

BP 1st Pass
long

time
widespread
corrosion expected
(divide time by two)

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Figure 26: A First


Pass Method for
Determining the
Timing of the First
Intelligence Pig
Inspection.

Calculate the most likely and worst case corrosion rates


(P50 and P90 rates if using the probabilistic corrosion model)

Determine when the most


likely rate leads
to wall losses > 10%

Determine when the most


likely rate leads
to wall losses of 1 mm

Take the greater of the times


calculated in Steps 1 and 2
This is the earliest
date for inspection

Determine the retiral wall


thickness using BPs 1st pass
method for long defects

Calculate when the worst


case rate means the retiral
limit will be reached

Calculate when the most


likely rate means half the
retiral limit will be reached

Take the lesser of the times


calculated in Steps 5 and 6
This is the latest
date for inspection

The actual inspection date chosen should fall between these limits. The final
selection of date will depend the factors outlined above i.e.

the known or anticipated corrosion risk;


the sensitivity of the inspection tools available to detect the anticipated
defect types;
the corrosion allowance and whether the pipeline can be accessed for
repairs;
the environmental risk;
local pipeline regulations;
the strategic importance of the pipeline and the associated political
environment;

83

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Repeat Inspection
Intervals

A similar method is used to determine the minimum inspection interval for


pipelines without a severe corrosion problem. The relatively low accuracy of
even the high resolution intelligence pigs compared with other NDT techniques,
means that pigs are not well suited to the measurement of corrosion rate.
Statistical techniques have been applied to pig inspection results. However
these will result in a high degree of uncertainty in measured corrosion rate
unless there is a reasonable period of time between inspections.
For example, the time to the next intelligence pig inspection survey could be
determined as follows. If the defects identified in the early survey are indeed
corrosion defects, then one should carry out the next inspection when the
predicted growth exceeds the tools ability to confidently measure differences
in wall thickness. If an inspection tool has an accuracy of 10% of pipewall
thickness then the inspection should be carried out when the estimated total
loss in wall thickness due to corrosion has exceeded:
2 x 10%
i.e. 14.1%, which is equivalent to 1.8 mm on a 12.7 mm thick line.
The reason for this is that the error in the measurement of corrosion (a
differences in wall thickness) is approximately 2 times the error in each wall
thickness measurement.
For pipelines with significant corrosion, the timing of the next inspection
depends on when it is anticipated that the corrosion depth will reach a "retiral"
limit. For onshore pipelines, the owner has the opportunity to carry out local
inspections and repairs at relatively low cost. In this instance, an inspection
programme can be put in place to monitor a number of the severest defects in
order to judge when repair / replacement / derating is necessary. This point
monitoring may be used to reduce the required frequency of IPS. For offshore
pipelines with significant corrosion, where inspection and repair is costly, there
will be a tendency to carry out IPS more frequently than outlined above. It
should be understood that inspections carried out more frequently than the
minimum recommended frequency may not be able to generate reliable
corrosion rate data. In these instances only with careful consideration, should
forecasts of pipeline integrity be made from pit depth changes from inspection
to inspection. In order to avoid over-pessimism in forecasts it is important to
consider other sources of information on possible corrosion rates (e.g. corrosion
model predictions / experiments; topsides inspection results).

84

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Typical Inspection
Intervals

For oil transmission pipelines, where fluid corrosivity is being monitored on a


routine basis, the pipeline is in a reasonable condition and thought to be at low
risk, a frequency of once every 5 years would be typical. Examples of this are
the new Forties MOL and the existing Ninian MOL, which are both subsea lines
in the North Sea. When a good corrosion management track record has been
established, assets are tending to increase this interval. For significantly corroded
pipelines, where the pipeline is nearing the end of its life, inspections may be
carried out as often as annually.
For dry gas pipeline systems that are tightly controlled, inspections would be
carried out after indications of potential problems from other sources: topsides
corrosion, failure to meet dew point spec, water carry over into the pipeline etc.
For example, BP has operated a dry gas pipeline (Gyda field in Norway) since
1986, without yet requiring an intelligence pig inspection, because of the low risk
of internal corrosion in this pipeline.
For more information on this topic contact Will McDonald ( Sunbury x4014 ) or
Jim Corbally ( Sunbury x2774 ) of the SPR Transportation Team.

85

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Applying Models to Process Equipment


Crude Oil
Stabilisation Trains

As stabilisation trains take fluids from the flowlines, they will naturally benefit
from the injection of any corrosion inhibitors upstream to protect the flowlines.
However, there are locations within the stabilisation units where inhibitors will
not work well and alternative means of corrosion control should be employed.
Inhibitors rarely work well under low velocity or stagnant conditions, such as
at the base of separators, tanks or in instrument bridles. Deposits can form in
such locations preventing inhibitors getting to the metal surface. This becomes
relevant at velocities below 1 m/s and either internal coatings and anodes
(vessels, tanks) or stainless steel piping (instrument bridles) should be used.
Carbon steel is suitable for drain lines, downstream of an isolation valve.

Gas Compression
Systems

Gas compression systems fall into two categories; wet gas compression and dry
gas compression. Some systems are wholly wet gas, such as Pedernales,
Venezuela and the Long Term Test facility at Cusiana, Colombia. The majority
of systems are wet up to an intermediate stage of compression at which point
the gas is dried, normally in glycol contactors at approximately 500 psi. Once
the gas is dried, corrosion is not a major concern and a minimal corrosion
allowance isnormally specified to account for periods when gas dryers operate
off-specification or for external corrosion.
In wet systems, corrosion will occur whenever the gas falls below its water
dew-point. This can be predicted using flowsheet simulation packages such as
Genesis but there are some general guidelines which make the task more
straight forward.

Pipework
Downstream of
Compressors

86

The gas entering a compressor will have come from either a vessel or knock out
pot. The gas will therefore be in equilibrium with water and hydrocarbon liquids
and there should be zero or negligible liquids present. The action of compressing
the gas will heat it, raising it above the dew-point and thereby removing any
traces of liquid water. The pipework downstream of compressors is therefore not
at risk from internal corrosion and a moderate corrosion allowance (1 - 2mm) will
suffice to account for external corrosion. The exception is small bore instrument
tappings where the gas may cool to below its dew-point, causing corrosion.
Greater corrosion allowances or stainless steels should be used in these locations.

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Wet Gas Coolers

Table 15: Operating


Conditions and
Corresponding
Corrosion Rates for
Discharge Coolers

Gas is typically cooled between each stage of compression. Downstream of


compressors, liquid water will not re-appear until the gas is cooled to below its
dew-point. This will occur some way into the cooler. If the cooler has carbon
steel tubes it is worth calculating the temperature at which this will occur as the
site of water condensation can be the location of worst case corrosion and will
therefore determine the life of the coolers. As the following example, in Table
15 from one BPX asset shows, the dew-point temperature can be closer to the
gas exit temperature than the entry temperature. If the entry temperature had
been used for the corrosion rate predictions, they would have been
unnecessarily conservative.

Temperature - in
Temperature - out
Pressure
CO2 content
PCO2
pH range
Water dew point
Water content
Tube size
Wall thickness
Pred. Corr. Rate
Inhib. Corr. Rate

1st Stage
Discharge
Cooler

2nd Stage
Discharge
Cooler

3rd Stage
Discharge
C ooler

4th Stage
Discharge
Cooler

243oF
110oF
220 psig
0.2 mole%
0.44 psia
4.65 - 4.95

240oF
110oF
567 psig
0.2 mole%
1.13 psia
4.47 to 4.75

222oF
110oF
1334 psig
0.2 mole%
2.68 psia
4.32 to 4.55

226oF
110oF
3310 psig
0.2 mole%
6.63 psia
4.21 to 4.38

147oF
737 lb./MMscf

144oF
136oF
299 lb./MMscf 124 lb./MMscf

132oF
64 lb./MMscf

1" x 16g
1.5 mm

5/8" x 16g
1.5 mm

3/4" x 16g
1.5 mm

5/8" x 16g
2.75 mm

0.5 mm/yr.
0.05 mm/yr.

0.9 mm/yr.
0.09 mm/yr.

1.16 mm/yr.
0.1 mm/yr.

1.6 mm/yr.
0.2 mm/yr.

87

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Carbon steel is rarely a good choice for the tubes of coolers in wet gas service
for the following reasons:
1. The equipment is critical as it handles flammable gas at high pressure
within the facilities.
2. The thermal requirements of the cooler exclude the use of significant
corrosion allowances and therefore coolers typically have thin walled
tubes.
3. The high gas velocities and highly turbulent flow regimes mean corrosion
inhibitors are unlikely to work well.
4. Inhibitor may need injecting downstream of each compressor as it may be
lost with the liquids at each knock out pot, making inhibitors
uneconomic.
5. On-line inspection of the tubes of airfin coolers is difficult.
More suitable materials for the tubes include 316L, duplex or super duplex
stainless steels. If necessary, carbon steel can be used for the tube sheets to
reduce costs with a suitable corrosion allowance incorporated.
Glycol Contactors

Glycol contactors are an example of equipment that, on the face of it, may
suffer excessive internal corrosion due to the combination of gas below its dewpoint, high pressures and carbon steel construction. However, operating
experience has shown this to not be the case as the large volumes of glycol
effectively absorb the water and inhibit corrosion. Carbon steel is therefore a
satisfactory material of construction although many projects go to the expense
of internal coatings, such as epoxy phenolics, particularly for the lower sections.
Although corrosion inhibitors are supplied to control corrosion in glycol
contactors, their benefit is not quantified or proven. However, the control of the
pH of the water/glycol moisture is important and chemicals (neutralisers) are
available for this. During operation the pH of the fluid is reduced by the build
up of organic acids. These result from the degradation and hydrolysis of the
glycol during the heated, regeneration stage.

88

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Flow Velocities in Process Pipework


The 1995 de Waard & Milliams corrosion rate prediction model relies heavily on
the use of flow velocities to predict corrosion rates. If this model is used,
guidance is required on typical velocities. The design guidelines used for the
Project, or actual throughput rates and internal pipe sizes are the best sources of
such information. If this information is not available then the following
information can be used as it details typical limiting velocities used during the
design of process pipework.
This information is taken from two recent design guidelines used by Process
Engineers for sizing of process pipework. They deal with maximum velocities
and can therefore be used as worst case. Pipe sizes are based on several criteria,
including the requirements to avoid vibration, deposition of solids, excessive
pressure drop and erosion.
Flow Velocities in
Single Phase
Liquid Lines

Single phase liquid lines refers to pipework where system pressure is forcing
liquid from higher pressure vessels to lower pressure vessels, drains or tankage.
It does not refer to the suction or discharge of pumps.
Maximum velocity = 5.0 m/s, with excursions up to 9 m/s.
Flow should not exceed 5.0 m/s and should not be less than 1 m/s. The lower
limit is to avoid deposition of solids. More detailed guidelines are summarised
below. They are only to be applied to clean fluids - allowable velocities shall be
reduced if solids are present.

Table 16: Maximum


Velocities in Single
Phase Liquid Lines

Nominal line size


Process liquid general
Hydrocarbon headers
Hydrocarbon branches
Water & water solutions
Liquid to reboiler
Side stream drawoff
Gravity flow
Refrigerant lines

Maximum Velocity (m/s)


5
5
5
3.5
1.25
1.25
1
0.6

9
9
9
9
3
2.5
1.25

89

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Flow Velocities in
Pumped Liquid Lines

The flow velocity in pumped liquid lines is strongly dependent on pump type
and line size. Centrifugal pumps and large line sizes can handle higher liquid
velocities than reciprocating pumps and small line sizes. If the pump type is
unknown, it is safer to assume a centrifugal pump for the purposes of corrosion
rate calculations.
If the line size is not known, the following velocity range can be used. If the
line size is known, Tables 17 and 18 give more information.
Centrifugal Pumps
Suction 1 to 2.4 m/s
Discharge
1.8 to 5.5 m/s, excursions up to 9 m/s.
Reciprocating Pumps
Suction 0.3 to 0.6 m/s
Discharge
1 to 1.8 m/s

Table 17: Maximum


Velocities in Lines to
and from Centrifugal
Pumps

Service

up to 3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"

Table 18: Maximum


Velocities in Lines to
and from Reciprocating
Pumps

Speed RPM

up to 250
251-330
over 330

90

Max. Velocity m/s


Normal

Max. Velocity m/s


Limit

Suction
1
1.4
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4

Discharge
1.8
2.4
3
4.3
4.9
5.5

Maximum Velocity (m/s)

Suction
0.6
0.5
0.3

Discharge
1.8
1.4
1

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Flow Velocities in
Multiphase Lines

In multiphase lines, use the limiting velocity defined by API RP 14E. BP use a C
factor of 135 for carbon steel - see p77. Velocities should not exceed 75% of the
'critical flow velocity'. Critical flow in multiphase systems is analogous to sonic
flow in single phase systems.

Flow Velocities in
Vapour or Gas
Lines

A general limit of 18 m/s is applied to gas piping to avoid pipe vibrations.


Compressor surge/recycle lines, relief valve inlets etc may operate at substantially
higher velocities - see Table 19. However, pipework to and from reciprocating
compressors typically has a lower velocity limit of 12 m/s.

Table 19: Vapour Line


Sizing Criteria

Service
< 15 psia (vacuum)
0 - 100 psig
100 to 500 psig
500 to 2000 psig
Flare

Velocity m/s
61 to 152
46 to 61
30 to 46
30 to 38
0.5 to 0.8 Mach

In general, vapour piping is sized in terms of pressure drop, rather than


maximum velocities.

91

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

Economic Tools To Use During Materials Selection

Corrosion modelling will give a good indication of the probability of failure of


equipment in service due to internal conditions but will not help in determining
the economic consequences of such a failure or the operating costs involved
with avoiding or managing such a failure. Even if corrosion models predict
short times to failure, it may be economic to plan for replacement or repair of
carbon steel equipment late in field life rather than to invest in a more robust
solution on Day 1. Alternatively, inhibitors may be a technically feasible
solution for process pipework but economically and logistically, protecting large
numbers of short lengths of pipework may be impractical and corrosion
resistant materials may be a better choice.
The technique of life cycle costing (LCC, also known as whole life costing)
helps in this assessment by converting future costs into current monetary value
and thereby allowing direct comparisons with capital costs. To carry out
accurate, meaningful and useful LCCs the Materials or Project Engineer must
have:
1. An understanding of the economic factors driving the decision, such as
discount rates, rates of return on investment and net present values.
2. The design life and production profile of the development.
3. An assessment of future costs based on similar developments over several
years.
4. An understanding of the important economic drivers for the Project, such
as the balance between capital and operating costs. This in turn will be
determined by the economic terms under which the licence was awarded.
Gathering the necessary data for accurate LCCs is a major task and a guideline
document is available [17].
In some cases, the cost of materials are relatively minor and the costs of
installation far outweigh them. Expensive sub-sea wells are an obvious
example of where workovers are to be avoided due to a materials failure. In
such cases it is common to select robust materials in order to protect against a
repeat of the high installation costs but there are many examples where the
answer is less clear cut. The key question is, when is investment in corrosion
resistant materials justified?
Corrosion models clearly have an input to this but can not provide the complete
answer. Corrosion models are normally used as a materials selection tool and

92

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

taking an extreme example, if there were no consequences of a failure there


would be no justification in investing in corrosion resistant materials. An
investment in corrosion resistant alloys (CRAs) aims to protect against the
consequences of a failure and therefore materials selection must consider the
consequences in the decision making process. Consequences may include
economic, health, safety or environmental impacts or all four but in most cases
all consequences can be related to a financial impact.
Example:
A flowline is to transport corrosive fluids from a remote well-site to the
processing facilities. The route includes a major river which provides local
communities with water for consumption and agriculture. The river crossing
requires directional drilling and is therefore expensive. The material selected for
the majority of the flowline is carbon steel with a suitable corrosion allowance
but it is recognised that localised failures and repairs may be required late in field
life.
What material should be used for the river crossing? The decision can not be
based solely on the corrosivity of the fluids as the consequences of a failure
under the river crossing is clearly far greater than a similar failure on land. A
method of evaluating the consequences of such a failure is required and from
this a method for determining how much it is worth investing on Day 1 to
prevent a failure several years later.
The Expected Value technique does this and is covered in detail in ref 17. The
technique quantifies what has been done subjectively for many years: materials
selection becomes more conservative as the consequences of a failure increase.
This is the main reason corrosion resistant materials are used more extensively
downhole and sub-sea than on land - it is not the fluids that are significantly
different but the economic drivers.
Table 20: Categories
of Equipment,
Classified by the
Proportion of
Materials Cost to
Total Installation Cost

Location/Equipment
Type

Subsea wells
Land wells / sub-sea flowlines
Flowline road / river crossings
Buried land lines
Surface running land lines

Materials Cost
as %
of Whole
< 3%
~ 10%
~25%
~ 30%
> 30%

Material
Selection

Most conservative

Least conservative

93

THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN

The expected value technique is represented graphically in Figure 27. It


assesses the economic costs and benefits of two or more choices. In assessing
each option, the technique allows for the possibility of failure and a probability
is assigned to each outcome (failure or no failure). Probabilities of failure will
be higher for a carbon steel system than for an equivalent CRA system and
corrosion modelling helps to determine this. The costs of each outcome consist
of :

Capital costs (no failure case)


A combination of capital and operating costs
The above plus repair or replacement costs
For fair comparison, the costs are converted to present day values (NPVs). The
costs associated with each outcome are multiplied by their probability to
produce the estimated value.
Figure 27: Expected
Value Technique

No Failure
NPV Cost = $1.0

99%

EV for CRA
$1.31 million

Install CRA
river crossing

(0.99 x 1) + (0.01 x 25.23)

Failure
1%

NPV Cost = $1.0+$0.48+$23.75


= $25.23

Which river crossing material ?

Choose lowest EV
i.e. CRA river crossing

No Failure
80%

NPV Cost = $0.6


EV for C-steel
$5.85 million

Install C-Steel
river crossing

(0.8 x 0.6) + (0.2 x 24.64)

20%

94

Failure
NPV Cost = $0.6+$0.29+$23.75
= $24.64

References
1.

C de Waard, U Lotz, D E Milliams, "Predictive Model for CO2 Corrosion


Engineering in Wet Natural Gas Pipelines", Corrosion, 47 (1991) 976

2.

C de Waard, U Lotz, "Prediction of CO2 Corrosion of Carbon Steel", NACE


Corrosion 93, New Orleans, paper 69

3.

C de Waard, U Lotz, A Dugstad, "Influence of Liquid Flow Velocity on


CO2 Corrosion : A Semi-Empirical Model", NACE Corrosion 95, Orlando,
paper 128

4.

C de Waard, D E Milliams, "Carbonic Acid Corrosion of Steel", Corrosion,


31 (1975) 177

5.

R H Newton, "Activity Co-efficients of Gases", Industrial and Engineering


Chemistry, March 1935, 302-306

6.

L W Jones, "Corrosion and Water Technology", OGCI Publications, Tulsa,


USA, 1988, p14-15

7.

J G Stark, H G Wallace, "Chemistry Data Book", J Murray Ltd, London,


1978, p 60-61

8.

I R McCracken, C G Osborne, D Harrop, "Carbon Dioxide and Corrosion


in Forties", Sunbury Report No PEB/122/89, dated December 1989

9.

J E Oddo, M B Tomson, "Simplified Calculation of CaCO3 Saturation at


High Temperatures and Pressures in Brine Solutions", J of Petroleum
Technology, 34 (1982) 1583

10.

L A Rogers, M B Tomson, "Saturation Index Predicts Brine's Scale-Forming


Tendency", Oil and Gas Journal, April 1 1985, p 97

11.

R G Chapman, "pH Models for Corrosion Rate Predictions", Sunbury


Report No POB/025/96, dated June 1996

12.

M J J Simon Thomas, P B Herbert, "CO2 Corrosion in Gas Production


Wells: Correlation of Prediction and Field Experience", NACE Corrosion
95, Orlando, paper 121

95

REFERENCES

96

13.

J J Carroll, J D Slupsky, A E Mather, "The Solubility of Carbon Dioxide


in Water at Low Pressure", J Phys Chem Ref Data, 20 (1991) 1201 - 1209

14.

A J Ellis, R M Golding, "The Solubility of Carbon Dioxide above 100C


in Water and in Sodium Chloride Solutions", Amer J of Sci., 261 (1963)
47-60

15.

S Takenouchi, G C Kennedy, "The Solubility of Carbon Dioxide in NaCl


Solutions at High Temperatures and Pressures", Amer J of Sci, 263
(1965) 445 - 454

16.

S D Malinin, "Thermodynamics of the H2O - CO2 System",


Geochemistry International, 10 (1974) 1060 - 1085

17.

D M E Paisley, "Selecting Materials for Wealth Creation: A Materials


Selection Philosophy based on Life Cycle Costs", BP Sunbury Report No.
ESR.97.ER.005, 10th Jnauary 1997

18.

D Vedapuri "Studies on Oil-Water Flow in Inclined Systems" April 1997


Progress Report, Section 9. Ohio University Multiphase Flow and
Corrosion Project.

19.

A J McMahon and S Groves, "Corrosion Inhibitor Guidelines: A Practical


Guide to the Selection and Deployment of Corrosion Inhibitors in Oil
and Gas Production Facilities", BP Sunbury Report No. ESR.95.ER.050,
April 1995

Installation of the Cassandra 98 Excel


Workbook
Description
The Cassandra 98 work book was written in Microsoft Excel for Windows 95,
version 7.0a. It may not run in earlier versions of Excel.
Automatic Installation
If for any reason this does not succeed, try the Manual Installation procedure
described below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Insert the disc into the disc drive


Click on the Start button
Click on the Run option
Using the Browse feature select A:\Install.Exe
In the Run window click on OK
Follow the Instructions.

Once complete the work book should be opened using the following
sequence:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Start
Programs
Cassandra
Cassandra 98

The first time the work book is used the message This document contains
Links will appear. Click No to this.
Continue at step 5 in the Manual Installation procedure described below.
If not already present, the automatic installation will create the following
folders with files in them:
1. C:\Xlph
2. C:\Data\Cassandra
3. C:\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Cassandra
In addition it will place the file Xlph.ini in the root directory ( c:\ )

97

INSTALLATION OF THE CASSANDRA 98 EXCEL WORKBOOK

Manual Installation
In the root directory of the disc there is a folder called Files. This folder
contains two files ( Cassandra 98.xls and Xlph.ini ) and a folder
( Xlph ) in the root directory. The Xlph folder contains seven folders:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Phreeqe.dat
Readme.doc
Xlph.inf
Xlph.out
Xlph.xla
xlph.xla
Xlphdemo.xls

It is suggested that these instructions are visible during loading so that they
can be referred to easily during the loading process. The instructions must be
followed precisely to ensure that the installation is successful. It is suggested
that Windows Explorer or File Manager be used for sections 1 to 3 below.
Installation

1. Copy the Xlph folder into the root directory of the C: drive. This should
give the following structure:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

C:\Xlph\Phreeqe.dat
C:\Xlph\Readme.doc
C:\Xlph\Xlph.inf
C:\Xlph\Xlph.out
C:\Xlph\Xlph.xla
C:\Xlph\xlph.xla
C:\Xlph\Xlphdemo.xls

2. Copy the Xlph.ini file into the root directory of the C: drive to give
C:\Xlph.ini
3. Copy the Cassandra 98 file to your preferred location such as the Desktop,
the root directory or another folder. For example: C:\Cassandra 98.xls
4. Start Excel
5. On the Menu bar click Tools.
6. On the drop down menu click Add-Ins.
7. In the Add-Ins box click on Browse.
8. In the Look in box select (C:).
9. Select the xlph folder and click Open.
10. Select the Xlph.xla file and click OK.
11. In the Add-Ins box click on OK.
12. If not already open, Open the Cassandra 98.xls file.
98

También podría gustarte