GOUTA Chiheb - Invoice INV-895992-P6D9N5, downloaded on 2/24/2015 10:48AM - Single-user license only, copying/networking prohibited.

Paper No.
00034
CORROSION 2000
THE CORROSION INHIBITOR AVAILABILITY MODEL

Bill Hedges
BP Amoco
Sunbury, UK

Dominic Paisley and Richard Woollam

BP Amoco
Alaska, USA

ABSTRACT
The traditional Corrosion Inhibitor Efficiency Model has been reviewed and shown to have some failings particularly
with respect to the design of new facilities. The problem of considering a single, deterministic corrosion rate has been
discussed and the distribution of corrosion rates about a mean ( or modal ) value has been considered. The role of a corrosion
inhibitor to not only reduce the mean corrosion rate but also decrease the spread of corrosion rates has been highlighted.

A Corrosion Inhibitor Availability Model has been introduced, the benefits of which are:

A focus on the required corrosion rate.

Removes focus from the mean corrosion rate only.
Accounts for realistically achievable corrosion rates.
Identifies the importance of the availability of corrosion inhibitor.
Accounts for the interruption or the absence of inhibitor from time to time.
Does not allow dangerously low corrosion allowances to be used.

The limitations on the use of corrosion inhibitors has been discussed and a Corrosion Inhibitor Risk Category has
been introduced. Data from the Prudhoe Bay operation in Alaska is used to support the ideas discussed. Much of the
discussion focuses on the design of new facilities. However, the approach is equally applicable to existing operations.

Keywords: Corrosion Inhibitor, Efficiency, Availability, Distribution, Risk

INTRODUCTION
For many years the Corrosion Inhibitor Efficiency Model has been used to quantify the benefits of a corrosion
inhibitor treatment program when designing new pipelines and facilities. However, recently some operators have found the
model to have some shortcomings. This paper discusses these and introduces the Corrosion Inhibitor Availability Model as an
alternative approach. As part of the discussion, consideration is given to the benefits of using a distribution of corrosion rates
about a mean value, rather than a single, deterministic corrosion rate. It is shown that the role of a corrosion inhibitor is not to
only reduce the mean corrosion rate but also decrease the spread of corrosion rates.
Field data from Alaska is used to support the ideas discussed. Much of the discussion focuses on the design of new
facilities. However, the approach is equally applicable to existing operations

Copyright
2000 by NACE International.Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole must be in writing to NACE
International, Conferences Division, p.o. Box 218340, Houston, Texas 77218-8340. The material presented and the views expressed in this
paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association. Printed in U.S.A.
 GOUTA Chiheb - Invoice INV-895992-P6D9N5, downloaded on 2/24/2015 10:48AM - Single-user license only, copying/networking prohibited.
DISCUSSION

Traditional Approach: The Corrosion Inhibitor Efficiency Model

Until recently, the usual way to describe how effective inhibitors were at reducing the corrosion rate was to use the
concept of efficiency. Efficiency is defined as:

E% = 100 x ( CRu - CRi ) / CRu (i)

Where:

CRu is the uninhibited corrosion rate ( mm/y )

CRi is the inhibited corrosion rate ( mm/y )
E is the corrosion inhibitor efficiency ( % )

CRu and CRi were sometimes determined in a laboratory study, or through fieldwork. These values were used to
calculate E% as shown in equation 1. For further work involving the same inhibitor, such as the design of new facilities or for
application in different fluids, it was generally assumed that E% was a constant. Thus the predicted inhibited corrosion rate
could be obtained by rearrangement of equation 1 to give CRi. During the design phase of new projects, the uninhibited
corrosion rate is generally predicted using a deterministic model and a standard corrosion inhibitor efficiency applied; The
authors company used to use 90% and other Operators applied efficiencies ranging typically from 60 to 95%.

In this approach, the estimated corrosion allowance ( CA / m m ) for a new construction designed to last a specific
time ( Lifetime / years ) can be calculated using Equation 2:

CA = CRi x Lifetime (2)

The concept of 'efficiency' is a simple mathematical device with which most people are familiar with in everyday
life, particularly with respect to mechanical devices. However, assuming that the efficiency is a constant, irrespective of the
conditions, makes several assumptions which, together with other related problems, are discussed below.

Concerns with the Corrosion Inhibitor Efficiency model

High Corrosion Inhibitor Efficiencies and Corrosion Rates. The only purpose for applying a corrosion inhibitor is to
reduce the corrosion rate to an acceptable level. When discussing corrosion inhibitor efficiencies, especially high values, it is
easy to lose this focus and, if the uninhibited corrosion rate is high, it is possible for the inhibited rate to be above the target
value.

For example, in the Prudhoe Bay field in Alaska, the flowlines are treated with corrosion inhibitor. Historical records
show that in 1994 the inhibitor appeared to be providing good protection with all the efficiency values in the range of 98.6% to
99.7%. Despite this only 40% of the flowlines had "acceptable" rates of corrosion, defined as less than 0.05 mm/y.

Defining a simple efficiency also ignores the practical measures that must be taken to ensure the expected reduction in
corrosion rates is attained. The Inhibitor Efficiency Model did not consider the type or concentration of inhibitor required to
achieve an e.g. 90% reduction in corrosion rate; it was not unknown for some facilities to be designed on the basis of the
Inhibitor Efficiency Model but for little or no inhibitor to be used after commissioning.

Achievement of Low Values of Inhibited Corrosion Rate. The efficiency model predicts that inhibitors can always
reduce the uninhibited corrosion rate by a fixed percentage, irrespective of its value. For example, for a pipeline with an
uninhibited corrosion rate ( CRu ) of 0.2 ram/y, the model states that an inhibitor with an efficiency of 90% will reduce the rate
to 0.02 mm/y. In a design situation, if the required lifetime of the pipeline was 25 years this might result in a specified
corrosion allowance of only 0.5 mm, which could be easily consumed during periods of upset

This introduces the question: "Do inhibitors work by reducing the uninhibited corrosion rate by a fixed percentage or
by reducing the rate to a given value ?". The efficiency model assumes a fixed percentage. At this time it is unclear exactly
how inhibitors work and studies continue in an attempt to understand the mechanistic details. Indeed, much of the existing
data suggests that the two choices described above are too simplistic. Most recently this has been shown for CO: saturated
brines containing different concentrations of acetic acid', as shown in Figures 1 and 2.
 GOUTA Chiheb - Invoice INV-895992-P6D9N5, downloaded on 2/24/2015 10:48AM - Single-user license only, copying/networking prohibited.
20 .--12-.-3% NaCI only
-ha-- 100ppm Acetate ( Na )
15
- - o - - 1000ppm Acetate ( N a )

10
-~ 25 ppm Inhibitor
added
~- 5
O

0
0 2 4 6 8 10121416182022
Time (hours)

F I G U R E 1: T H E R E D U C T I O N OF D I F F E R E N T C O R R O S I O N R A T E S BY C O R R O S I O N I N H I B I T O R

0.25

0.2

~. 0.15
d
0.]

0.05

0
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 14 16 18 20 22
Time (hours)

F I G U R E 2: AS F I G U R E 1 BUT W I T H AN E X P A N D E D C O R O S I O N R A T E SCALE

The data indicates that the inhibited corrosion rate is related to the uninhibited rate for a given inhibitor concentration,
but not by a fixed percentage. In practice however, the more corrosive conditions would be treated with higher concentrations
of inhibitor to achieve the target corrosion rate. This makes the assumption of a constant inhibited corrosion rate valid, as long
as attention is paid to the requirements to achieve that corrosion rate.

The data in Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate that it is possible to observe high corrosion inhibitor efficiencies ( >99% )
corresponding to low corrosion rates ( <0.02 mm/y ). However, experience from the field suggests that these low corrosion
rates are not always achievable in practice over the entire lifetime of a pipeline. In a recent publication 2 Shell presented
corrosion rate data from several of their oil and gas fields from around the world. The data relates to pipelines of different
ages and may be used to estimate the corrosion rates achieved in practice over the lifetime of the pipeline. A summary of the
data is shown in Figure 3 in which the actual corrosion rates are compared to those which had been predicted for each field.
The straight line shown in Figure 3 indicates the inhibited corrosion rates which would be predicted if a corrosion efficiency of
85% were used.
 GOUTA Chiheb - Invoice INV-895992-P6D9N5, downloaded on 2/24/2015 10:48AM - Single-user license only, copying/networking prohibited.
A
3

E - - Predicted corr rateswith 85% efficiency [ f

E 2.5 corrrates measured I j

~ 1.5

0.5

[]

~ 0 i i i
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Predicted Uninhibited Corrosion rates (mm/y)
F I G U R E 3: C O R R O S I O N R A T E S F O R SEVERAL O I L AND GAS F I E L D S

The data in Figure 3 highlights two important observations related to this discussion:

1. High corrosion efficiencies can be achieved in practice ( > 99% ).

2. The lowest corrosion rates observed in practice are in the range of 0.1 mmJy to 0.2 mrn/y.

This supports the use of a constant corrosion rate for design purposes. Similar data has been observed for the Prudhoe Bay
field ( see below ).

There are several explanations for why the low corrosion rates observed in laboratories are not observed in the field.
Certainly, one reason is due to the significant differences between the two environments and it is this difference that tends to
receive most attention when attempting to compare laboratory and field results. Laboratory conditions are highly controlled
and consequently can only approximate the actual situation. Laboratory prepared metal surfaces are generally smooth and
relatively clean whereas real pipework is often rough due to corrosion and the presence of a variety of organic and inorganic
scales and deposits. In practice this simply means that the laboratory does not accurately reflect the real situation.

Another explanation for the apparent difference is that the corrosion rates determined in the laboratory are mean
corrosion rates, generated over a small surface area over a relatively short period of time. The corrosion rates quoted for field
conditions are generally worst-case corrosion rates, often generated from failure investigations or repairs. The mean corrosion
rate in the field, averaged over the entire surface of a pipeline is far lower than the corrosion rate at the failure location. If this
was compared with the laboratory results, the agreement may be better.

However, another practical reason for the actual corrosion rates being lower is that the inhibitor is not always added to
the system, i.e. it is not available over the entire surface for all of the time.
 GOUTA Chiheb - Invoice INV-895992-P6D9N5, downloaded on 2/24/2015 10:48AM - Single-user license only, copying/networking prohibited.
Inhibitor Availability. The efficiency model assumes that the corrosion inhibitor will be injected into the system at
the correct dosage, without interruption for the lifetime of the system, i.e. it is available for 100% of the time. Experience has
shown that these assumptions are invalid for a variety of reasons: pumps fail or are set incorrectly, injection valves and
pipework block or leak, supplies of inhibitor are interrupted, production rates or water cuts change or solids deposit in the line,
preventing the inhibitor reaching the surface etc. The Efficiency Model attempted to account for these failings as well as the
performance of the inhibitor by applying a blanket inhibitor efficiency; this is flawed as a great deal can be done to ensure that
such failings are minimised.

Discriminating between Inhibitors. Historically, not all corrosion inhibitors have been effective and laboratory tests
were used to identify the best ones for a given application. In recent years inhibitor technology has improved significantly and
all of the major suppliers are able to offer products which are highly effective for all but the most demanding applications.
Thus, in laboratory tests, many products will reduce the corrosion rate to below a target value. In an environment where the
efficiency model is routinely used this can lead to some questionable selections being made i.e. the inhibitor that achieves the
greatest percentage reduction in corrosion rate for a given concentration is often selected. This loses the focus on both
performance and cost, e.g. a product resulting in a corrosion rate of 0.05 mm/y being selected in preference to one resulting in
0.08 mm/y when the target was 0.1 mm/y. Clearly both products meet the required technical performance and so all other
factors being equal, the cost-performance should be compared.

For all of the reasons noted above, several oil and gas companies have reviewed the use of the corrosion inhibitor
efficiency model and considered alternative approaches. In order to do this it is helpful to understand how corrosion rates are
distributed and what is expected of a corrosion inhibitor.

The Distribution of Corrosion Rates

When corrosion engineers discuss corrosion rates they often focus on a deterministic, single value, e.g. "the corrosion
rate is 1.0 mm/y". This obscures the observation that for a given set of conditions ( or narrow range of conditions ) there will
not be a single corrosion rate but a range of values distributed about a mean. In practice ( see later ) such distributions are
observed to be approximately Log Normal. Figure 4 shows a theoretical log normal distribution for which the most frequent (
modal ) corrosion rate is 1.0 mmJy and the standard deviation is 0.4 mm/y.

0.9

0.8
0.7
0.6
=~ 0.5 [ Uninhibited]
0.4
0.3
0.2

.I
Corrosion Rate, mm/y 8 10

FIGURE 4: L O G N O R M A L D I S T R I B U T I O N OF C O R R O S I O N R A T E S

Figure 4 illustrates the importance of understanding the distribution of corrosion rates. Whilst the modal value is 1.0
mm/y and the mean approximately 2 ram/y, it is obvious that much higher corrosion rates occur and it is the highest probable
rate that is of most concern.
 GOUTA Chiheb - Invoice INV-895992-P6D9N5, downloaded on 2/24/2015 10:48AM - Single-user license only, copying/networking prohibited.
The Role o f Corrosion Inhibitors
Corrosion Engineers typically focus on the ability of corrosion inhibitors to reduce the mean corrosion rate. Whilst
this is important, it is the authors opinion that of greater importance is an inhibitors ability to reduce the spread of corrosion
rates. In mathematical terms they reduce the standard deviation of the distributions. This is illustrated graphically in Figure 5
which shows the distribution from Figure 4 together with the distributions for two different inhibitors. Inhibitor 1 reduces the
most frequent corrosion rate to 0.1 mm/y and the standard deviation to 0.4 mrn/y. Inhibitor 2 also reduces the most frequent to
0.1 mrn/y but the standard deviation is reduced to 0.2 mm/y. Figure 6 shows the same data as Figure 5 but with a logarithmic
corrosion rate axis which illustrates the differences more clearly.

2 --

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
Uninhibited
1 ....... Inhibitor I

. . . . Inhibitor 2
0.8

0.6

0.4
l ',.

0.2
"-'....
0 ___ .........: ....
0.5 I 1.5 2

Corrosion Rate, mm/y

FIGURE 5: LOG N O R M A L D I S T R I B U T I O N OF I N H I B I T E D A N D
UNINHIBITED C O R R O S I O N RATES

1.8

1.6

; i
1.4 : I
I I

1.2 I I
Y~ ( , Uninhibited
~ 1 i,, -~. ! . . . . Inhibitor 1
r~ ..... Inhibitor 2
"~ o.8

0.6
: ?,/ \
,, I ' \t \
0.4 \
0.2 -

0
0.001 0.0| 0.1 1 ]0

Log (Corrosion Rate, ram/y)

FIGURE 6: AS FIGURE 5 BUT WITH A L O G C O R R O S I O N R A T E AXIS

 GOUTA Chiheb - Invoice INV-895992-P6D9N5, downloaded on 2/24/2015 10:48AM - Single-user license only, copying/networking prohibited.
It is clear from Figures 5 and 6 that the primary benefit of the inhibitors is to reduce the spread of corrosion rates and
eliminate the extremely high values. A good inhibitor is therefore one which reduces the extreme corrosion rate to the required
target value. To achieve this, the mean and most frequent corrosion rates may have to be significantly lower than the target
value.

Whilst Figures 4 to 6 are for illustration only the same trends are seen in practice. Figure 7 shows the distribution of
inhibited, general corrosion rates for the towlines in Prudhoe Bay on an annualised basis since 1996, during which time a
significant effort was undertaken to improve the corrosion inhibitor chemistry and the injection strategy. The data, which are
summarised in Table 1, were obtained using corrosion coupons.

70%
1996 .... 1997
60%

w - - 1998 m ~ 1999
50%
O

40%

3o~ !,i Target Corrosion Rate

20%

10%

0% I I "r" " ~ ~ m r-
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11
Corrosion Rate - mm/y

FIGURE 7: THE DISTRIBUTION OF INHIBITED CORROSION RATES FOR P R U D H O E BAY FLOWLINES

TABLE 1: ANALYSIS OF G E N E R A L CORROSION RATE D A T A F R O M C O U P O N S AT P R U D H O E BAY

Year Coupons < 0.05 mm/y. Mean Corrosion Rate Standard Deviation
rnrrdy. mm/y.
1996 73 % 0.13 0.15
1997 86 % 0.06 0.08
1998 96 % 0.03 0.06
1999 97 % 0.02 0.04

In this case the target value was 0.05 mm/y but to achieve corrosion rates less than this for greater than 97% of
coupons the mean corrosion rate had to be reduced to 0.02 turn/y, the most frequent corrosion rate to 0.01 mm/y and the
standard deviation to 0.04 ram/yr.
 GOUTA Chiheb - Invoice INV-895992-P6D9N5, downloaded on 2/24/2015 10:48AM - Single-user license only, copying/networking prohibited.
Several observations can be made from this data:

1. The corrosion rates are log normally distributed as described above.

2. The mean corrosion rate is currently approximately 0.02 mm/y ( see Table 1 ).
3. The modal value is approximately 0.01 mm/y. rate but only decreased slightly year on year.
4. The distribution of corrosion rates is relatively narrow.
5. The distribution of corrosion rates does decrease year on year. This is best observed at the 'tail end' of the
distribution where all of the corrosion rates greater than 0.1 rnm/y are 'pooled' together. It is clear that the height
of the 'tail' decreases year on year. The standard deviation reduces from 0.15 mm/y to 0.04 rnm/y between 1996
and 1999.
Similar effects are seen when the pitting corrosion rates for the same coupons are examined. The distributions are
similar to those shown in Figure 7 and are summarised in Table 2.

T A B L E 2: ANALYSIS OF P I T T I N G C O R R O S I O N R A T E DATA F R O M C O U P O N S AT P R U D H O E BAY

Year Coupons < 0.125 mm/y. Mean Pitting Rate Standard Deviation
mm/y. rnin/y.
1996 22% 0.48 0.76
1997 31% 0.24 0.38
1998 57% 0.13 0.22
1999 80 % 0.10 0.391

Note 1: A change in reporting specification resulted in an apparent increase in the standard deviation of the
coupon pitting rates in 1999.

Figure 7 illustrates the success of the corrosion management program at Prudhoe Bay. However, the improvements
did not come without certain costs. The three major costs related to the corrosion inhibitor treatment were:

1. Installation of injection points at every production well head including dedicated valves to ensure correct dosing -
approximately 600 in total.
2. Sponsorship of a dedicated corrosion inhibitor chemistry R&D program to develop cost-effective products.
3. Increasing the dosage rate approximately 5 fold and therefore annual treatment costs.
 GOUTA Chiheb - Invoice INV-895992-P6D9N5, downloaded on 2/24/2015 10:48AM - Single-user license only, copying/networking prohibited.
The last point is illustrated in Figure 8 which shows how the dosage of corrosion inhibitor has increased since 1990.

180

E 160 i
. .. ~ ' . ~
140
.e I .4...,.
120 Q

I
100 11,

0 i.~l '#
2 80
60 I
_= o

40
m Ir m lj 'w'

2O
0

0 I I I I I I I l I
May-90 M ay-9l May-92 May-93 May-94 May-95 May-96 May-97 May-98 May-99
Date

F I G U R E 8: PRUDHOE BAY CORROSION I N H I B I T O R DOSAGE

With hindsight it is clear that the dosage rates used in the period 1990 until 1993 were not high enough. From 1993
to 1995 the required dosage was in the region of 150ppm, based on the water phase ( currently the water cut is in the region of
60% ). Beyond 1995 the improvements in the corrosion rate came from the three initiatives described above, The decrease in
the mean corrosion rate and the reduction in the spread of the corrosion rates over the same time period is shown in Figure 9.
 GOUTA Chiheb - Invoice INV-895992-P6D9N5, downloaded on 2/24/2015 10:48AM - Single-user license only, copying/networking prohibited.
Prudhoe Bay Flowline Corrosion Inhibition Control Chart

Target = 0.05 mm/y I

,,,~0.0025

Conventional Corrosion Inhibitor [ Focused Inhibitor Development

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
FIGURE 9: T H E I M P R O V E M E N T IN C O R R O S I O N R A T E S AT P R U D H O E BAY
Having identified the key requirements of a corrosion inhibitor, it is important that any alternative approach should
take them into account.

The Corrosion Inhibitor Availability Model

From the discussion above it is clear that any alternative to the efficiency model must embrace as many of the issues
identified as possible. Having considered these requirements several oil and gas companies have concluded that the simplest
model possible should be used. It is known as the Corrosion Inhibitor Availability model. In the model, the inhibited
corrosion rate ( CRi ) is set to be equal to the desired corrosion rate.
A new variable is then introduced, the Corrosion Inhibitor Availability ( A% ), which is defined in Equation 3.

A% = 100 x Time Inhibitor is actually added at or above the minimum dosage / Lifetime (3)
Thus the availability is simply the percentage of time that the inhibitor is actually 'available' in the system at the
required dosage. It is worth noting that this value can often be lower than expected. For example, in one of the authors
companies assets a specialised chemical treatment is applied in the field once every week. The treatment takes between 15 and
20 hours during which time the corrosion inhibitor has to be switched off due to an incompatibility of the two treatments. This
means that this process alone reduces the availability to ~90% !
Having defined CRi and A% the corrosion allowance can be calculated as shown in Equation 4.

CA = Inhibited Corrosion Allowance + Uninhibited Corrosion Allowance (4)

CA = ( CRi x A%/100 x Lifetime ) + ( C R u x [ l-A%/100 ] x Lifetime ) (5)

 GOUTA Chiheb - Invoice INV-895992-P6D9N5, downloaded on 2/24/2015 10:48AM - Single-user license only, copying/networking prohibited.
In the authors company the inhibited corrosion allowance is set at what is considered to be a practical minimum value of 0.1
turn/y, although this value is constantly under review. Thus Equation 5 becomes:

CA = ( 0.1 x A%/100 x Lifetime ) + ( C R u x [ l-A%/100 ] x Lifetime ) (6)

Although slightly more complex than the Efficiency Model the benefits of the Availability Model are:

A focus on the required corrosion rate.

Removes focus from the mean corrosion rate only.
Accounts for realistically achievable corrosion rates.
Identifies the importance of the availability of corrosion inhibitor.
Accounts for the interruption or the absence of inhibitor from time to time.
Does not allow dangerously low corrosion allowances to be used.
Reduces the importance of predictive corrosion rate models, with all their limitations, as inhibited corrosion rates
are assumed to be essentially constant at 0.1 rnrn/y.

When Should Corrosion Inhibitors Not be Used

Clearly corrosion inhibition is only one way to control corrosion in the oil and gas industry, although for many
applications, especially long pipelines, it is often the most cost effective. Within the authors company there are guidelines
which identify when too much demand is being placed on the corrosion inhibitor and so prompt a more detailed consideration.
Currently, there are five criteria which would trigger such considerations, which are:

1. The mean uninhibited corrosion rate is greater than 6 mrn/y.

2. The required inhibited corrosion rate is less than 0.1 mm/y.
3. Required corrosion inhibitor availability is greater than 95%,
4. Required corrosion allowance is greater than 8 ram.
5. The velocity of the system implies a C factor greater than 200, as defined by API RP 14E.

Corrosion Inhibitor Risk Category

It is common during the early phases of a new project for all options to be considered with the materials of
construction selected on the ideal basis of whole life costing. However, as more detailed design begins many projects begin to
be cost constrained ( CAPEX ) and the focus is on minimising this value. The move from corrosion resistant alloys ( CRA's )
to the use of carbon steel with inhibition is often a very practical way of achieving this by shifting the costs to operating ones (
OPEX ). Of course, if CRA's were being considered the conditions will be highly corrosive and consequently the demand on
the corrosion inhibitor will be high.

Whilst this approach is perfectly valid it is common to see a problem once the facility has been built and
commissioned. At that point the focus shifts from minimising CAPEX to minimising OPEX. One very easy way to reduce
OPEX is to reduce or eliminate the corrosion inhibitor injection. Sadly, this approach is often justified on the basis that the
facility is new and there is a good corrosion allowance. This argument is then strengthened by the observation that when the
action is taken there are no immediate leaks.

The authors company have introduced a Corrosion Inhibitor Risk Category to help Project and Operational Engineers
understand the criticality of the corrosion inhibitor treatment on the integrity of their system. The aim of the guidelines is to
ensure that when carbon steel is selected a suitable corrosion allowance is applied and the required corrosion inhibitor
deployment and corrosion monitoring systems are provided.

There are five categories which describe the reliance on inhibition and thus risk. The categories are numbered with
"1" representing the lowest risk and "5" the highest. Some other operators have adopted similar systems and if these become
generally accepted the categories may be named to emphasise their meaning and allow standardisation across the industry.
The category of a system is determined by consideration of the uninhibited corrosion rate ( predicted using a model ), the
available corrosion allowance ( typically up to a maximum of 8ram ) and the required project life time. Once these are known
the reliance on corrosion inhibition to reduce the corrosion rate to 0.1 mm/y can be calculated. The categories, together with
some typical definitions for a pipeline application, and proposed descriptions s are shown in Table 3.
 GOUTA Chiheb - Invoice INV-895992-P6D9N5, downloaded on 2/24/2015 10:48AM - Single-user license only, copying/networking prohibited.
By assigning one of the above risk categories to a project it is hoped that credit taken for the use of corrosion
inhibitors at the design stage will be understood during the operational phase.

TABLE 3: C O R R O S I O N I N H I B I T O R RISK C A T E G O R I E S

Category Maximum Maximum Expected Comment Possible

Required Uninhibited Corrosion Rate Category
Availability (ram/y) Name
0% 0.4 Benign fluids where corrosion inhibitor usage is Benign
not anticipated ( dry gas, stabilised crude oil ).
Predicted metal loss can be accommodated by
corrosion allowance alone.
50% 0.7 Corrosion inhibitor will probably be required Low
but at the expected corrosion rates there will be
time to review the need for inhibition based on
inspection data.
90% Corrosion inhibition will be required for the Medium
majority of the field life but the facilities need
not be available from day 1.
4 95% Inhibition is relied on heavily and will be High
required for the lifetime of the operation.
Inhibitor must be available from day 1 to ensure
success of the inhibition programme.
>95% >6 Carbon steel and inhibition is unlikely to Unacceptable
provide integrity for the full field life. Select
corrosion resistant materials or plan for repairs
& replacements.

The categories can also used to define minimum standards for corrosion monitoring, inspection and expected corrosion
inhibitor dose rates. This ensures that projects that rely heavily on corrosion inhibition to maintain future integrity, provide the
necessary tools to manage the corrosion inhibition program. Note that the maximum recommended Inhibitor Availability is
95%. This is not strictly the mechanical availability of pumps and chemical, as such values can easily exceed 99% but takes in
to consideration the many other reasons that inhibitor programrnes can be less than fully effective, as discussed earlier. Further
details regarding the Corrosion Inhibitor Risk Categories are available 3.

SUMMARY
1. The Corrosion Inhibitor Efficiency Model has been reviewed and shown to have some failings.
2. The problems of considering a single, deterministic corrosion rate have been discussed.
3. The distribution of corrosion rates about a mean value has been considered.
4. The role of a corrosion inhibitor to not only reduce the mean corrosion rate but also decrease the spread of corrosion rates
has been highlighted.
5. The Corrosion Inhibitor Availability Model has been introduced. The benefits of such a model are:
A focus on the required corrosion rate.
Removes focus from the mean corrosion rate only.
Accounts for realistically achievable corrosion rates.
Identifies the Importance of the availability of corrosion inhibitor.
Accounts for the interruption or the absence of inhibitor from time to time.
Does not allow dangerously low corrosion allowances to be used.
6. The limitations on the use of corrosion inhibitors has been discussed.
7. A Corrosion Inhibitor Risk Category has been introduced.
 GOUTA Chiheb - Invoice INV-895992-P6D9N5, downloaded on 2/24/2015 10:48AM - Single-user license only, copying/networking prohibited.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Shell Oil Company and in particular the authors of reference 2 for the use of Figure 3.

REFERENCES
1. Bill Hedges & Lorraine McVeigh, "The effect of acetate on CO2 corrosion: The Acetate Double Whammy", Paper 99021,
NACE 1999, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
2. Sergio Kapusta, B.F.M. Pots and Ross Connell, "Corrosion Management of Wet Gas Pipelines", Paper 99046, NACE 1999,
San Antonio, Texas, USA.
3. A.J. McMahon and D.M.E. Paisley, "Corrosion Prediction Modelling: A guide to the use of corrosion prediction models for
risk assessment in oil and gas production and transportation facilities", BP Amoco Guideline, Sunbury Report Number
ESR.96.ER.066, November 1997.