Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 37

Corrosion Predictions and Risk Assessment in

Oilfield Production Systems


Steve Turgoose Intertek CAPCIS, Manchester UK
stephen.turgoose@intertek.com

Outline

Corrosion Prediction Models


Accuracy
Limitations
Application of Models to Risk Assessments
Materials Selection
Inhibition System Design
Effects of Process Changes
Predictions of Current Condition
Emphasis on carbon steel in production environments

Predictive Models for CO2 corrosion

Freely available
Norsok M506 (Norwegian Standard)
Cassandra (BPs implementation of DeWaard et al. equations)

Commercial
ECE (allows for H2S, based on DeWaard equations)

In house many
e.g. Hydrocorr (Shell)

Inputs

Temperature

Partial pressure CO2 (system pressure + mole % CO2)

pH (water chemistry -TDS and bicarbonate)

Flow parameters (Oil, water, gas flow rates, pipe diameter)

Outputs

Predicted general sweet corrosion rate of pipeline steel due to CO2

Many models (including Norsok and Cassandra) do not include effects


of:
Oil wetting
Top of Line corrosion
Organic acids
Sour corrosion rates
H2S pitting
Effect of inhibition

Accuracy of models

How accurate are the predicted uninhibited rates?

NACE Symposium 2005 Predicting Corrosion in Oil and Gas


Environments

Hedges et al paper 05552


Cassandra +- 25% of calculated rate

Smith & DeWaard


ECE 25 % standard deviation

Norsok (Olsen et al NACE 05551)

Hydrocorr (Pots, NACE paper 05550)

Standard test procedures

Allow similar variations in corrosion rates under identical contions

E.g. Shell protocols for one particular test


Baseline corrosion rate should be between 4 and 7 mm/y
i.e. +- 25%

Oil wetting

At moderate velocity and low water cut surfaces may be oil wet

Consequent reduction in corrosion rate

But can we be sure that water drop out will not occur?

No concensus among operators on this effect.

Does not apply to light condensates

Top of Line Corrosion

At high condensation rates (>0.25 g/m2/s) may be high corrosion rates


in condensing water at the top of the line.

At lower condensation rates water saturates with iron carbonate and


corrosion rate generally taken to be ~ 10 % of bottom of the line
corrosion rate

A possible problem with stratified flow.

Organic acids

Recent work has started to quantify this.

Corrosion rate increases by an amount proportional to undissociated


acid concentration (usually mostly acetic acid).

Not usually a major effect but may be significant in condensing


conditions.

Sour corrosion

H2S reduces general corrosion rate

ECE applies a multiplying function no rigorous basis but seems to


reflect what is seen

H2S may give pitting

Sweet rate multiplied by a pitting factor often close to 1 but higher at


high chloride or if oxygen present

Does the accuracy of the uninhibited rate


matter?

What are we going to use the results for?

Can we use C steel without CI? uninhibited rate important

Can we use C steel with CI? feasibility of inhibition matters

Carbon steel without inhibitor?

At low corrosion rates (maybe < 0.3 mm/y) corrosion inhibitor may not
be required.

Allowable corrosion rate depends on design life and corrosion


allowance.

Inspection can indicate if later inhibition is required.

Risks associated with use of carbon steel


with corrosion inhibitors

What can we achieve in practice?

How do we determine and mitigate risks?

Availability Approach (conventional)

Assume a certain corrosion rate when inhibitor added (e.g. 0.1 mm/y).

The inhibitor concentration for this is determined by testing.

Assume uninhibited rate when inhibitor not added at or above the


required concentration.

What is Availability?
It is a measure of the time that the chemical is
present in the pipe at the required concentration

We measure inhibitor availability by:


Concentration
Pump operation time

Measured Concentration

T T
T

100%

Target dosage level

Below target dosage

Time

Contributions to lack of availability

Two types of contribution


Downtime of inhibitor dosing system (times with no inhibitor dosed)
Variations in inhibitor dosing with times below target

Common Design Assumptions

0.1 mm/y inhibited corrosion rate

95 % availability can be increased is appropriate measures taken

6 mm corrosion allowance up to 8 or 10 mm possible on large (>18


inch) pipes

Leads to decision on whether carbon steel is technically possible for


design life

Economic factors must be considered

What can be achieved with inhibitors


when present?

CAPCIS recently reviewed a large set of test data over many years

And obtained chemical suppliers inputs

Under what conditions can a rate of < 0.1 mm/y be achieved ?

Results published in NACE 2011 (Hedges et al, paper 11062)

What can be achieved with inhibitors?

Very limited data


T > 120 C
Shear stress > 320 Pa

Difficult to achieve < 0.1 mm/y if the uninhibited rate is > 35 mm/y

Also difficult if TDS > 250,000 mg/l

To inhibit these systems may not be possible or may require very high
concentrations of inhibitor.

What availability is achievable

Has to be operator defined


is largely a corrosion management issue

System specific e.g. multiple wells vs one trunkline

For a single pipeline downtime can be reduced to close to zero with


sufficient care / expenditure, but there will be times under target.
For treatment of multiple wells some downtime must be expected
and 95 % availability may be difficult.

Factors limiting availability?

Dosing pump failure / injection point blockage


duplication of equipment and injection points

Empty dosing tanks


ensure sufficient stocks

Leaks, so that inhibitor not going into line


measurement of inhibitor residuals in the pipeline

Uses of predictions

Design
Materials selection can we use C steel
CI regime requirements concentration and availability required
This should be reviewed in the light of monitoring and
inspection data
System modifications
Can assess effect of changes in operation
May lead to further consideration of CI treatment
Base on present condition from inspection
Condition assessment
Failure investigation (root cause)

Assessment of present condition example

An operator had a subsea leak

Reasons unknown at present

Review of all other subsea lines in same field

Without confidence in present condition all lines will be shut in until they
can be inspected.

Data available?

No In Line Inspection carried out after 12 years

No monitoring of corrosion inhibitor levels in the line

Corrosion coupons and probes show low corrosion rate, but not relied
on since the coupons and probes in the failed line also showed low
corrosion rate

Only data available is laboratory test data for corrosion inhibitor and
inhibitor volumes pumped (+ production data)

One year inhibitor records


300

Corrosion Inhibitor ppm

250

200

Target

150

Actual

100

50

0
14/11/2007

03/01/2008

22/02/2008

12/04/2008

01/06/2008

Date

21/07/2008

09/09/2008

29/10/2008

18/12/2008

06/02/2009

If uninhibited when CI below target conventional definition of availability

Uninhibited rate = 5 mm/y (test data) model said 4.5 mm/y


Inhibited rate = 0.1 mm/y at 100 ppm

In one year
217 days above target
75 days below target
~ 70 days shut down (ignore corrosion in this period low T & P)

Loss in the year


= 217 days at 0.1 mm/y + 75 days at 5 mm/y
= 1.1 mm loss in one year

If uninhibited when CI below target conventional definition of availability

For all twelve years (from similar calculations)

Loss = 16.5 mm from 18.6 mm nominal wall thickness (MAWT ~ 4mm)

PIPELINE ALREADY FAILED

But it has not

Look at data again?

One month data


160.00

Inhibitor Concentration (ppm)

140.00

120.00

100.00

inhibitor

80.00

Target

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
16/06/2008

21/06/2008

26/06/2008

01/07/2008

06/07/2008

date

11/07/2008

16/07/2008

21/07/2008

26/07/2008

Look at specimen one month data

30 days
Average daily concentration 105 ppm
14 days < 100 ppm

BUT
Only 1 day < 90 ppm (due to spike in production)

What is the effect of small variations around the target?

Effect of concentration on corrosion rate


0.25

50% time at 80 ppm, 50 % at 120 ppm


Average rate = 0.102 mm/y
Corrosion rate mm/y

0.2

Compared to 0.098 mm/y at 100


ppm

0.15
0.122

0.1
0.082

0.05

0
50

60

70

80

90

100

110

concentration ppm

120

130

140

150

Consider unavailability only due to


downtime (no dosing)

Assume that system still inhibited when just below target (other days
are better inhibited)

Days with no dosing = 15 days


Days with dosing = 277 days

Total loss in year = 0.28 mm


Total loss to date in 12 years ~ 4 mm

OK at present?

Look at downtime data

In one year 15 days with no inhibitor (but with production)

1 period of 5 days
1 period of 2 days
8 individual days

If inhibitor persistent (maintains protection) for one day with no dosing


Total loss in one year = 0.15 mm
Total loss to date ~ 2.5 mm

Condition

May have lost


16 mm
4 mm or
2.5 mm
Depending on assumptions (somewhere between the latter two is likely
to be correct)
There is significant uncertainty, and consequent high risk, due to
absence of
inspection,
monitoring of inhibitor residuals and corrosion rate

Conclusions

Corrosion predictions can enable assessment of


whether carbon steel with corrosion inhibition can be used, and
requirements for control of corrosion inhibition programs.

Users of the models should be aware of the limitations and accuracy of


the models

A more realistic (less conservative approach to the definition of


inhibition availability is required to address risks associated with
inhibition.

These risks will never be reduced to low levels unless appropriate


inspection and monitoring is carried out.