Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
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
5
6
8
11
27
29
References
95
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
35
Duplex SS
30
25
20
Cost
per
5 Km
($mill)
15
Bi-metal
13Cr liner
13%Cr
10
Carbon steel, no ca
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
INTRODUCTION
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%
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.
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
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
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:
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
E32
Comments
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
not defined
0.3-6.5 bar
--20-80oC
1.5 -13 m/s
Comments
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:
-
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.
-
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.
10
Field Situation
Recommended Approach
Water only
Liquid/Gas
Water/Oil
Water/Oil/Gas
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
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
Figure 4: Schematic
Diagram of an Oil
Production System
(downhole, separator,
export)
%CO2
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
pCO2
fCO2
OUTPUT
cell F9
P.%CO 2
100
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
13
Pr =
where
P
Pc
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
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
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
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
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
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
16
K true
H (for 125 200C) = 250
TDS
+ (45.2 T + 559)
10000
TDS
+ 6500
10000
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
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
17
OUTPUT
cell F18
pH(act, Oddo) ..Oddo & Tomson calculated pH in brine OUTPUT cell F19
An empirical equation from reference 9...
HCO 3
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
pH(act, XLpH)
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
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
Accepted 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
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
De Waard Calculated
Scaling Temperature
OUTPUT
cell F26
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
21
Figure 6: Explanation
of Parameter "S" in a
Gas/Liquid System
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
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
OUTPUT
cell E32
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
OUTPUT
cell G32
23
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
1.4
log10 Ffug = 0.67 0.0031
P
T + 273
24
OUTPUT
cell J32
OUTPUT
cell K32
1
log10 Fscale = 2400
where
OUTPUT
CELL H32
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
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
OUTPUT
cell G37
1119
+ 0.0013 T + 0.41log10 (fCO2 ) 0.34pH act
T + 273
OUTPUT
cell G38
Vm = 2.45
Overall Corrosion
Rate
U 0.8
fCO2
d 0.2
OUTPUT
where
26
1
1
+
Vr Vm
cell G39
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
T
(oC)
U
(m/s)
fCO2
(bar)
correct?
28
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
TDS
+ (45.2 T +559 )
10000
TDS
+ 6500
10000
30
31
Table 8: Previously
Issued Design
Guidelines
Report Title
Authors
ESR.93.ER.013
1/3/93
I D Parker
J Pattinson
A S Green.
ESR.94.ER.016
28/8/94
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
32
33
34
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
40
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
41
Frequency Chart
313 Outliers
.113
2260
.085
.057
.028
565
.000
0
0.00
1.13
2.25
mm/yr
3.38
4.50
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
10
1
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
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
99.80%
140
120
100
99.20%
80
99.00%
60
98.80%
40
98.60%
20
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
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%
-100%
Jan-90
Jan-91
Jan-92
Jan-93
Jan-94
Jan-95
Jan-96
45
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
Field
Beatrice
Brae
Bruce *
Forties Pipeline *
Magnus
Miller *
Nelson Enterprise *
Scott Amerada Hess *
AVERAGE
47
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
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:
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
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
50
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
51
52
Spare CA
SAFE
UNSAFE
Derating, repair or
replacement required in
Year 10
Cross section of
pipe or vessel on
Day 1
20
53
Knowns
Uninhibited corrosion rate - from model
Variables
Inhibitor Availability
Corrosion Allowance
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
54
Variables:
Inhibitor availability = 0 to 95%
Corrosion allowance = 0 to 8.0 mm
55
Designing and
Operating a
Category 1
Corrosion Control
System
Designing and
Operating a Category
2 Corrosion Control
System
56
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
Designing and
Operating a
Category 3
Corrosion Control
System
58
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
Designing and
Operating a
Category 5
Corrosion Control
System
59
60
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
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
Comparisons of the
Inhibitor Availability
Model with BPs
Previous Model
18
16
14
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
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
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
10
10
4
2
0.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
0.5
10
63
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
65
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 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
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
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
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...
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
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.
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
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.
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
0.25
Specification
2 lbs/mmscf
0.20
Probability
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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
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
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
76
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.
0
0
10
15
20
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
77
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 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
79
Routine Survey
80
When To Inspect
a Pipeline
New Pipelines
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 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 actual inspection date chosen should fall between these limits. The final
selection of date will depend the factors outlined above i.e.
83
Repeat Inspection
Intervals
84
Typical Inspection
Intervals
85
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.
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
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
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.
9
9
9
9
3
2.5
1.25
89
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
Service
up to 3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
Speed RPM
up to 250
251-330
over 330
90
Suction
1
1.4
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
Discharge
1.8
2.4
3
4.3
4.9
5.5
Suction
0.6
0.5
0.3
Discharge
1.8
1.4
1
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
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
91
92
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
No Failure
NPV Cost = $1.0
99%
EV for CRA
$1.31 million
Install CRA
river crossing
Failure
1%
Choose lowest EV
i.e. CRA river crossing
No Failure
80%
Install C-Steel
river crossing
20%
94
Failure
NPV Cost = $0.6+$0.29+$23.75
= $24.64
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
95
REFERENCES
96
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
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
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