20557e00 Corrosion Risk Assessment Methodology

Eni S.p.A.
Exploration & Production Division
COMPANY STANDARD
CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
20557.VAR.COR.SDS
April 2010
ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD
This document is property of Eni S.p.A. Exploration & Production Division.

It shall neither be shown to Third Parties not used for purposes other than those for which it has been sent.
Eni S.p.A. 20557.VAR.COR.SDS
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 2 of 38
FOREWARD
Rev. 0 April 2010

Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 3 of 38
INDEX
CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

1. GENERAL
1.1 Foreword
1.2 Scope
1.3 References
1.3.1 Codes and Standards
1.3.2 ENI Company Standards
1.3.3 ENI Company Documents
1.3.4 Other Documents
1.4 Acronyms and abbreviations
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The corrosion risk assessment studies
2.2 The corrosion risk
2.3 Execution of corrosion risk assessment studies
2.4 Supports to the execution of corrosion risk assessment studies
3. CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
3.1 Facilities and item identification
3.2 Data collection and review
3.3 Corrosion analysis
3.3.1 Material review and corrosion mechanisms identification
3.3.2 Corrosion assessment and corrosion factors calculation
3.3.2.1 Corrosion factor assessment for weight loss corrosion forms
3.3.2.2 Corrosion factor assessment for localized corrosion forms
3.3.3 Monitoring, NDT inspection and failure data review
3.4 Consequence analysis
3.5 Risk matrixes
3.6 Recommendations
3.6.1 Recommendations for corrosion control and prevention
3.6.2 NDT inspections
3.6.3 Corrosion Risk Assessment update
3.7 Corrosion risk assessment flow diagram
4. APPENDIX 1 – CORROSION ALLOWANCE AND THICKNESS RELATED PARAMETERS
4.1 Corrosion allowance
4.1.1 Corrosion allowance and corrosion modes
4.1.2 Actual design corrosion allowance and failure mode
4.1.2.1 ASME B31G
4.1.2.2 Sydberger et al.
4.1.2.3 EFC Document N. 23
4.2 Residual thickness allowable for corrosion
5. APPENDIX 2 – CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
5.2 Hazard consequence factor FH
5.2.1 Fluid type factor FF,H
5.2.2 Fluid pressure factor FP,H
5.2.3 Fluid temperature factor FT,H
5.2.4 Fluid volume available for escape (fluid flow rate) factor FFR,H
5.2.5 Close proximity (location) factor FL,H
5.2.6 Overall hazard consequence factor FH
5.3 Operability consequence factor FO
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 4 of 38
5.3.1 Production loss factor FPL,O

5.3.2 Redundancy factor FR,O
5.3.3 Shutdown time factor FST,O
5.3.4 Overall operability consequence factor FO
5.4 Environmental consequence factor FE
5.4.1 Close proximity (location) factor FL,E
5.4.2 Fluid type factor FF,E
5.4.3 Fluid volume available for escape factor FA,E
5.4.4 Overall environmental consequence factor FE
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 5 of 38
1. GENERAL
1.1 Foreword
Several studies have been issued in last years by ENI TEMM Dpt. dealing with the evaluation of the
risks related to corrosion in oil and gas production assets, including: production wells; treatment
plants; gathering systems; offshore structures. Most of these studies are based on procedures which
allow the evaluation of:
− the likelihood of occurrence of a corrosion event, and
− the magnitude of the relevant consequences;
the corrosion risk is then assessed by combining the two on the risk matrix.
The above studies use and integrate several models and rules in combination with specific and
tailored corrosion knowledge expertise. The previous experiences allowed the development of a
procedure, illustrated in this document, which today is quite well established and applicable to ENI
assets.
1.2 Scope
This Company document deals with the aims, the contents, the execution procedure and the field of
application of the Corrosion Risk Assessment (CorrRA) studies.
The document provides the description of the approaches adopted for calculating the corrosion and
the consequences factors to be used to assess the risk.
The algorithms and the criteria for corrosion prediction, both internal, i.e. due to conveyed fluids, and
external, caused by exposure to the external environment, are reviewed; reference is made as much
as possible to Company and International standards.
The sub-tasks which lead to the preparation of CorrRA studies are illustrated; specific attention is
paid to the data to be gathered as input for the execution of the study.
The targets of this Company document are:

− to illustrate the standardized methodology for the execution of the CorrRA studies;
− to provide guidelines for the adoption of the CorrRA studies in different phase of the life of the
assets,
with the final aim of improving the integrity of the assets in respect to corrosion related issues.
1.3 References
1.3.1 Codes and Standards
Ref. /1/ API RP 580 Risk-Based Inspection.
Ref. /2/ API RP 581 Risk-Based Inspection Technology.
Ref. /3/ ASME B31G Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded
Pipelines.
Ref. /4/ ASTM G16 Practice for Applying Statistics to Analysis of Corrosion Data.
Ref. /5/ DNV RP O501 Erosive Wear in Piping Systems.
Ref. /6/ EN 12500 Protection of metallic materials against corrosion - Corrosion
likelihood in atmospheric environment - Classification,
determination and estimation of corrosivity of atmospheric
environments.
Ref. /7/ EN 12501-1 Protection of metallic materials against corrosion. Corrosion
likelihood in soil. General.
Ref. /8/ EN 12473 General principles of cathodic protection in sea water.
Ref. /9/ EN 12474 Cathodic protection for submarine pipelines.
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 6 of 38
Ref. /10/ EN 12495 Cathodic protection for fixed steel offshore structures.
Ref. /11/ EN 12954 Cathodic protection of buried or immersed metallic structure -
General principles and application for pipelines.
Ref. /12/ ISO 15156 / NACE MR0175 Standard material requirements for sulphide stress cracking
resistant metallic materials for oil field equipment.
Ref. /13/ ISO 15589-1 Cathodic protection of pipeline transportation systems - Part 1:
On-land pipelines
Ref. /14/ ISO 15589-2 Cathodic protection of pipeline transportation systems - Part 1:
Offshore pipelines
Ref. /15/ NORSOK M-001 Material selection.
Ref. /16/ EFC Publication No 23 Design consideration for CO2 corrosion in oil and gas
production.
1.3.2 ENI Company Standards

Ref. /17/ 20602.VAR.COR.SDS Corrosion integrity management.
Ref. /18/ 06215.DOC.GEN.SDS Facility functional units.
Ref. /19/ 20198.COO.GEN.SDS Item numbering.
Ref. /20/ 02555.VAR.COR.PRG Design criteria. Internal corrosion. corrosion parameters and
classification of the fluid.
Ref. /21/ 20555.VAR.COR.PRG Internal corrosion monitoring specification.
Ref. /22/ 20556.VAR.COR.FUN Internal corrosion monitoring. Functional requirements.
Ref. /23/ 20312.VAR.COR.PRG Guidelines for chemical treatments of pipelines.
Ref. /24/ 14059.PLI.COR.PRG Inspections with intelligent pigs.
Ref. /25/ 20384.PLI.MEC.SPC Pipeline hydraulic testing.
Ref. /26/ 20600. VAR.COR.PRG Guidelines on corrosion and material selection normative.
Ref. /27/ 20603.MAT.COR.PRG Material selection and corrosion control for oil and gas process
equipment.
Ref. /28/ 20019.MAT.COR.PRG Material selection for seawater handling systems.
1.3.3 ENI Company Documents

Ref. /29/ ENI E&P Doc n°1.3.0.08 General Requirements for HSE Asset Integrity Management.
Ref. /30/ SVI.TMS.MA.0001 TMS. Technology Management System Facilities Engineering
Handbook. Rev- A02, 29/10/2004.
Ref. /31/ SVI.DMS.GL.0003.000 DMS. Development Management System. Workflow Maps.
Rev- A01, 22/02/2004.
Ref. /32/ SVI.OMS.POS. MA.0001 OPOS. Opportunity and Production Operation System
Handbook. Rev- A02, 29/06/2005.
1.3.4 Other Documents

Ref. /33/ Luciano Lazzari, Pietro Pedeferri Cathodic Protection. – Polipress 2006
1.4 Acronyms and abbreviations
Symbol or Unit Definition

abbreviation
CorrRA (-) Corrosion risk assessment
CR (mm/y) Corrosion rate
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 7 of 38
CRA’s (-) Corrosion resistant alloys

DL (years) Design life or residual life
DMS Development Management System
Fc (-) Corrosion factor
FE (-) Environmental consequence factor
FH (-) Hazard consequence factor
FO (-) Operability consequence factor
FOC (-) Overall consequence factor
HAZOP Hazard and Operability Study
HSE Health, Safety, Environment
ICMS (-) Integrated Corrosion Management System
LCC Life Cycle Cost
MFD Material Flow Diagram
NDT Non Destructive Testing
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OPDS Opportunity and Project Development System
P&ID Process Instrumentation Diagram
PFD Process Flow Diagram
SSC (-) Sulphide Stress Corrosion Cracking
t (mm) Nominal wall thickness (referred to a pipe or a vessel)
tCA (mm) Corrosion allowance
tCA (mm) Actual design corrosion allowance. It is the original
maximum allowable thickness which can be corroded
before a damage/failure occurs
tCD (mm) Declared design corrosion allowance. It is usually thinner
than the actual design corrosion allowance thickness.
tCONS (mm) Consumed thickness. It is the thickness of the wall
consumed from start up to the moment the assessment is
performed.
tINS (mm) Total residual thickness as determined from direct
thickness measurements, by ultra-sonic or by intelligent pig
inspections.
tMIN (mm) Design wall thickness required for pressure containment
and mechanical resistance
TMS Technology Management System
tRES (mm) Residual thickness. It is the part of the actual design
corrosion allowance still available at the moment the
assessment is performed
UTM (-) Ultrasonic thickness measurements
X, Y, Z (-) Weights overall consequence factors
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 8 of 38
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The corrosion risk assessment studies

Corrosion risk assessment is a task of the asset integrity management system (see Ref. /17/, Ref.
/29/ and Ref. /30/).
The objects of the corrosion risk assessment studies can be all the assets belonging to a given oil
and gas production field, or part of them. Typical examples are:
− production wells;
− water or gas injection wells;
− gathering networks, including: piping in the wellhead area; flowlines; trunklines;
− onshore treatment plants;
− offshore topside facilities;
− transfer pipelines, onshore or offshore;
− offshore structures like: platform jackets; subsea wellheads; etc.
With respect to the project phases (see Ref. /31/ and Ref. /32/), the corrosion risk assessment
studies are issued:
− in the development phase, to check the material and corrosion prevention package during design
and execution;
− at handover to operation, as baseline for future assessments;
− periodically, during the operation period, to periodically check the status of the assets.
The targets of corrosion risk assessment are:

− to witness the integrity status of the assets;
− as premise for risk based inspections;
− to provide recommendations on actions to be taken for reducing corrosion related risks.
2.2 The corrosion risk

Risk in general is defined as the product of the probability of a given event, P, by the entity of the
costs, C, of the consequences of the event occurrence:
Risk = P × C
This definition implies the quantitative assessment of the probability P and of the costs C (see also
Ref. /1/ and Ref. /2/).
Applied to the case of corrosion failures, the consequences of an event include hazard for people,
repair intervention, loss of production, environmental pollution, etc., which are difficult, if not
impossible, to quantify. Also the probability of occurrence of a corrosion event cannot be calculated
using statistics as no homogeneous database are available for corrosion.
To overcome these inconvenient, a semi quantitative approach is adopted, based on calculations of

a corrosion factor, FC, as far as possible proportional to the likelihood of failure due to corrosion, and
of an overall consequences factor, FOC, which combines and expresses the entity of the
consequences due to hazard (safety to personnel), operability (production loss costs) and
environmental impact. The two factors are then combined on the corrosion matrixes.
2.3 Execution of corrosion risk assessment studies

The procedure for the execution of corrosion risk assessment studies consists of a sequence of
steps, or sub tasks (see also Figure 3.2):
− facilities and item identification;
− data collection and review;
− corrosion analysis;
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 9 of 38
− consequence analysis;
− risk matrixes;
− recommendations.
The sequence of execution of the sub tasks, however, may be not strictly linear, and may require
loops between the steps often being necessary to adequate the procedure to the project
requirements.
The activities to be performed shall be agreed between the Parties (Company; Company
Representative; Contractor; etc.) and adequately planned in the early phases of the project.
The main steps of the corrosion risk assessment procedure are reviewed in the next Chapter;
reference is made to the applicable Company and International standard. Some specific issues are
also illustrated in the Appendixes.
This procedure shall be intended as a guideline; for each Project, the procedure shall be adapted
based on requirements and information attaining to the assets and to the specific case under
evaluation.
2.4 Supports to the execution of corrosion risk assessment studies

A number of supports are available and shall be used along the execution of the corrosion risk
assessment activities; these include:
− Company standards;
− International standards;
− Company software tools;
− Data management systems.
Among the ENI software tools, ICMS (Integrated Corrosion Management System) 1 shall be
mentioned. This is a software tool linked to IM (Inspection Manager ENI Version) which allows to
perform session where data are automatically loaded from IM and, after requesting a number of
additional data to the user, the corrosion risk matrixes are calculated for selected items. This is
intended as a first level result to be further verified and validated by corrosion experts in accordance
with this Guideline.
1
ICMS is a software tools developed for ENI Div. E&P in cooperation between ANTEA srl and CESCOR srl.
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 10 of 38
3. CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
3.1 Facilities and item identification

The CorrRA study starts with the identification of the assets and of the individual components (or
items) to be covered. Each type of facility, in fact, includes a number of components or items; for
instance:
− the individual well for the set of the production or injection wells;
− the individual piping and vessels in a process unit of a treatment plant;
− the individual flowlines and trunklines in a gathering network.
As first step of the CorrRA procedure, the individual items to be covered shall be identified. In this
phase, preference shall be given to include the greatest number of items, with the aim to provide the
most complete picture for the asset under study. In this phase, for each type of component, the
exposure side to be investigated - if internal, or external or both - shall be also defined. Guidelines
are given in Table 3.1.
Grouping of more items can be performed in principle; however, it has to be verified their equivalence
from all viewpoints, including: material; sizes – thickness in particular; exposure conditions (present
and past); operating parameters.
Facilities Type of components Extent Exposure side Remarks

Wells − tubing − operating wells − internal − soil side corrosion is
− wellhead (choke (all); usually ignored;
valve included) − not operating − corrosion due to
− downhole equip. (optional) packer and completion
fluid is usually included
Gathering networks − wellhead piping − all (optional) − internal − choke valve, excluded,
− wellhead separator − external: is usually adopted as
atmospheric (optional) battery limit
− flowlines − all − internal − internal corrosion
− trunklines − external: soil, analysis usually
atmospheric (optional) performed in
and under thermal correspondence of
insulation pipeline inlet and outlet
Process plant units − piping − main process − internal − for buried tank or
− vessels units − external: soil, vessel and for above
− heat exchangers − utilities (optional) atmospheric (optional) ground storage tanks,
and under thermal corrosion analysis shall
− storage tanks
insulation be extended to the soil
− pumps (optional) side
− valves (optional)
Transfer pipelines − pipelines (on land − all − internal − in case of long
and offshore) − external: soil, pipelines, the corrosion
seawater and seamud analysis is performed
after dividing the line in
homogeneous trunks
Offshore structures − jackets − all − external: seawater −
− risers and seamud
− subsea wellhead
− PLEM
Table 3.1 – Guidelines for item identification.
As base case, the CorrRA includes the following main process Units (see Ref. /18/):
− Manifold Unit 130
− Flowlines Unit 150
− Oil Pipelines / Sealines Unit 160
− Gas Pipelines /Sealines Unit 170
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 11 of 38
− Production Pipelines Unit 180

− Oil Separation Unit 200
− Crude Oil Treatment Unit 210
− Crude Oil Transport and Storage Unit 220
− Flare, Vent and Blowdown Unit 230
− Gas Separation Unit 300
− Gas Dehydration Unit 310
− Gas Sweetening /Acid Gas removal Unit 330
− Gas Compression Unit 360
− Sea Water Unit 500
− Water Injection Unit 510
− Oily Water Treatment Unit 560
Extension of the CorrRA Study to other Units, including Utilities Units, shall be agreed in the Project
Scope of Work.
The types and quantities of items to be included in the corrosion risk analysis shall be evaluated case
by case; the following guidelines apply:
− process piping: all main piping conveying the treated fluids; manifolds are
treated as piping;
− drain piping (closed and open): extent of corrosion analysis to be evaluated case by case;
grouping of homogeneous types (based on fluids, size and
material) is admitted;
− vessels: all main (pressure) vessels; corrosion analysis is performed for
shell and internals;
− storage tanks: all; corrosion analysis is performed for bottom and for shell
and roof (optional);
− heat exchangers: all; corrosion analysis is performed for main components:
shell, tubes, plate, etc. depending of heat exchanger type;
− pumps and valves: to be evaluated case by case;
− instrumentation: excluded.
The items to be investigated shall be identified and a unique code associated to each item.
Reference shall be made as much as possible to the Company numbering system (see Ref. /19/).
For each item, the connected item (extent) shall be identified and reported.
3.2 Data collection and review

In this phase, for the identified items to be covered, all the data needed for the corrosion and
consequence analysis are gathered and reviewed. The following categories of data can be identified:
− item codes and extent;
− sizes and anagraphic;
− materials;
− design and operating parameters;
− fluid chemical analysis and physical parameters;
− fluid treatments with chemicals;
− process treatments;
− cathodic protection;
− coating and painting;
− monitoring, inspection and failures.
In case of facilities already in operation, historical data shall be collected to support past corrosion
analysis.
Main data and sources for above categories are shown in Table 3.2.
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 12 of 38
Data Category Main data Reference Documents

Item codes and extent − identification code of each item to be − P&ID
covered in the CorrRA − construction drawings
− extension (item connected – from/to) − vessel datasheets
− any other applicable document
Sizes and anagraphic − thickness related parameters − P&ID
− pipeline length and diameter; − piping specifications
− vessel sizes and volume − vessel datasheets
− construction drawings
Materials − Type (family; grade; etc.) − material selection reports
− reference normative − MFD
− piping specifications
− construction drawings
Process − separation − project specifications
− dehydration − P&ID
− physical deaeration (of raw sea water) − PFD
− filtering
− water removal
Design and operating data − temperature − design premises
− pressure − P&ID
− fluid flow rates (oil; water; gas; GOR) − material balances
present and past − production report
− production forecast
Fluid data − CO2 molar fractions − PVT studies
− H2S molar fractions − material balances
− water phase chemical analysis − chemical analysis bulletins
− bacterial activity − microbial analysis bulletins
− contaminants (oxygen; organic acids;
elemental sulphur; mercury; etc.)
− physical parameters (density,
compressibility factors, etc.)
Fluid treatments with − products: corrosion inhibitors; biocide; − project specifications
chemicals oxygen scavengers; etc − products bulletins and safety datasheets
− dosages − P&ID
− injection points
− historical data
Cathodic protection − CP system data (type; layouts; − project specifications
components; etc.) − project drawings
− periodical measurements (on and instant − survey reports
off potentials; TR operating data; etc.) −
Coating and painting − coating and painting type − project specifications
− dry film thickness
− thermal insulation
Monitoring, inspection and − monitoring data from permanent probes − project specifications
failures − inspection data (visual, UTS, etc.) − monitoring and inspection reports
− failure analysis (periodical)
− failure analysis report
Table 3.2 – Data categories and main sources.
3.3 Corrosion analysis

Corrosion analysis is the main activity of the CorrRA procedure, aimed to calculate or assess, for
each item, the likelihood of a corrosion failure, expressed by the corrosion factor, FC.
FC represents the probability of a failure caused by a corrosion process; it is a normalized parameter

expressing the severity of the environment with respect to the fitness of the corrosion control
methods.
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 13 of 38
The corrosion analysis is performed for each item through the following steps:
− material review and corrosion mechanisms identifications;
− corrosion assessment and corrosion factor calculations;
− review of monitoring, NDT inspection and failure data and corrosion assessment validation.
Above steps are illustrated in next paragraphs.
3.3.1 Material review and corrosion mechanisms identification

In this phase, the expected corrosion mechanisms are identified for each item or homogeneous sets
of items; this is performed in particular on:
− material;
− composition of the conveyed fluid;
− operating conditions, including temporary phases and upsets (Ref. /25/);
− exposure conditions.
Review of the item material represents a good practice before starting to assess corrosion; in
particular, compliance between material specified in the project documents and used for construction
shall be verified. Reference shall be made to as built drawings and construction data sheets.
The corrosion mechanisms (or corrosion forms) are identified separately for the internal side,
dominated by the conveyed fluid, and for the external side where corrosion is determined by the
natural environment of exposure – atmosphere, soil, sea water, etc.
In this phase, the scope is not to predict the severity of each corrosion mechanisms, but just to verify
that potential conditions exist for occurrence.
The analysis shall be supported by appropriate knowledge available from the following main sources:
− standard documents: Company and International;
− technical literature;
− software programs: calculation tools and expert systems;
− human expertise and experience.
The most common corrosion mechanisms met in oil and gas production are listed in Table 3.3,
distinguishing between internal and external corrosion.
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 14 of 38
Exposure Affected Prediction Remarks and reference

Corrosion mechanism Main affecting parameters
side materials approach normative
Uniform or localized loss of thickness
CO2 corrosion xCO2; P; T; pH; corrosion CS CR Rules and models available (Ref.
inhibitor; glycol /20/ and Ref. /23/)
2-
Microbial Induced Corrosion Bacterial activity; T; [SO4 ], CS CR or S/I Rules available (Ref. /20/)
(MIC) salinity
H2S corrosion xH2S; T; pH CS CR Rules available (Ref. /20/)
Oxygen corrosion [O2]; T; UAVG CS; CRA CR or S/I Rules and models available (Ref.
/20/)
Erosion corrosion UAVG; metallic material; CS; CRA CR or S/I Rules and models available (Ref.
operating conditions /20/)
(continuous; intermittent);
fluid treatments
Amine corrosion Amine type; T; HSAS; acid CS CR Ref. /2/ provides tables with
gas loading; UAVG corrosion rates
T, acid gas loading CRA
Galvanic Environment conductivity; CS; CRA Rules and models available (Ref.
Internal
coupled materials /20/)

Elemental sulphur corrosion Presence of elemental CS; CRA S/I Rules and threshold values
-
sulphur; T; [O2]; [Cl ] available (Ref. /20/)
-
Localized pitting and crevice [Cl ]; T; [O2]; pH CRA S/I Rules available (Ref. /20/ and
corrosion Ref. /15/)
Sand erosion solid particles; UAVG CS; CRA CR or S/I Rules and models available (Ref.
/5/ and Ref. /20/)
Environmental cracking
Sulphide Stress Cracking xH2S; P; pH CS S/I Based on compliance with
(SSC) - applicable normative (Ref. /12/)
xH2S; P; T; pH, [Cl ] CRA
Hydrogen Induced Cracking xH2S; P; T; pH CS S/I Based on compliance with
applicable normative (Ref. /12/)
Amine cracking Amine type; applied/residual CS S/l Guidelines available (Ref. /2/)
stress; T
-
Chloride Stress Corrosion [Cl ]; T; pH; applied/residual CRA S/I Rules available (Ref. /20/)
Cracking (CSCC) stress; [O2]
Mercury [Hg] CRA; Al S/I Rules available (Ref. /20/)
Environmental weight loss corrosion and cracking
Atmospheric Type of atmosphere: rural, CS; CRA S/I Rules available (Ref. /6/)
industrial, marine, etc.;
coating
Corrosion under insulation Type of atmosphere; CS; CRA S/I No rule available
(CUI) insulation material; coating
External
Sea water corrosion CP; coating CS; CRA CR Rules and models available (Ref.
/7/, Ref. /9/ and Ref. /10/)
- 2-
Soil corrosion [Cl ]; [SO4 ]; pH; T; bacterial CS; CRA CR Rules available (Ref. /7/); CP
activity; resistivity; CP; measurements (Ref. /11/)
coating
Electrical interference (DC DC and AC electrical source CS; CRA S/I Rules available (Ref. /11/)
and AC) in proximity; CP; coating
Carbonate-bicarbonate T; pH; presence of CS S/I - Guidelines available (Ref. /11/).
stress corrosion cracking bicarbonates; CP; coating
Abbreviations:
CR corrosion rates. CS carbon steel
CRA corrosion resistant alloys. S/I stability/instability
Table 3.3 – Corrosion mechanisms: affecting parameters and materials; prediction approach.
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 15 of 38
3.3.2 Corrosion assessment and corrosion factors calculation

Once the corrosion mechanisms have been identified and reviewed, corrosion is assessed following
different approaches:
− for the corrosion forms which lead to metal weight loss with progressive thickness reduction, as
for instance CO2 corrosion or oxygen corrosion, the corrosion rate is calculated using applicable
models or assigned by knowledge rules;
− for corrosion forms where only conditions of material stability or instability exist, as it is case for
instance of the cracking mechanisms, the corrosion factor is attributed based on expected
performance of the alloy at the given exposure conditions.
The two approaches are discussed in next paragraphs.
The approach based on corrosion rate calculation is restricted to carbon and low alloy steel items
and for a limited number of corrosion forms.
3.3.2.1 Corrosion factor assessment for weight loss corrosion forms

When the corrosion rate can be calculated, the corrosion factor is then calculated using the following
formula which combines the corrosion rate (CR) with the design life (DL) and the corrosion allowance
(tCA):
10 ⎛ CA ⎞
FC × ⎜ DL − ⎟
DL ⎝ CR ⎠
The corrosion factor FC calculated by the above formula is a number varying from negative to +10:
− negative values represent over-design conditions: the available corrosion allowance is greater
than necessary to cover the design life;
− a corrosion factor of zero represents the optimum case, with corrosion allowance exactly
consumed at the end of the life of the facility under study;
− positive values of the corrosion factor represent cases where the corrosion allowance is not
enough to last for all the design life. A corrosion factor of 10 represents that the corrosion rate is
quite high with a consumed thickness at the end of the life not compatible with the available one.
The corrosion rate, CR, shall calculated independently for each expected corrosion form, and the
highest value only is considered to calculate the corrosion factor. Internal and external corrosion rate
are considered separately and totally independent one from the other.
The design life DL represents the future period, expressed in years, to which the CorrRA Study
applies. Depending on the Project phase the CorrRA Study is performed, DL can represent:
at design or before start-up:

− the Project design life;
for assets already in service or late in their design life or for design life extension:
− the residual design life;
− a period of time assumed for validity of the CorrRA Study.
It is also possible, in the same CorrRA Study, to agree and assume different values for DL, intended
for instance as short, medium and long term evaluation periods.
The corrosion allowance thickness, tCA, is a key parameter to calculate the corrosion factor, FC. It
represents the true extent of wall thickness to which corrosion could be tolerated during operation
(see Appendix 1 for details).
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 16 of 38
Depending on the project phase the corrosion risk assessment study is performed, if development or
operating phase, different values could be used for corrosion allowance.
In case of new facilities, as it is the case of studies performed before handover to operation, the
design, or declared, corrosion allowance can be correctly used.
For studies performed during the operating life of the assets, the residual corrosion allowance, tRES,
shall be calculated, that is the measured or calculated residual thickness allowable for corrosion:
tRES tCA – tCONS
where tCONS is the thickness consumed from start up.
The residual thickness can be calculated or estimated using inspection data, in particular ultrasonic
thickness measurements, if available.
Definitions and applicable calculation approaches are illustrated in Appendix 1 of this Document.
3.3.2.2 Corrosion factor assessment for localized corrosion forms

For corrosion resistant alloy, as well as for some corrosion forms of carbon and low alloy steel
(typically the cracking forms), corrosion performance can be often predicted only in terms of stability
or instability. This leads to FC = 0 in case of verified stability and FC = 10 for verified instability.
Stability or instability (S/I) are assessed using available material performance expertise with the
supports of the normative.
In a similar approach, the corrosion assessment is performed by verifying the applicability limits of
the alloy, as indicated for instance in the reference normative (see Ref. /28/ for applicable normative,
and Ref. /12/, Ref. /15/Ref. /26/, Ref. /27/), with the conditions met for the item under evaluation. The
procedure is:
− the expected corrosion forms are identified;
− the parameters affecting the occurrence of each corrosion form are identified and the actual
values gathered;
− for each corrosion form, the actual values of affecting parameters are compared with a set of pre-
defined limits;
− the corrosion factor, FC, is assigned by means of rules whose antecedents are the results of
above comparisons with the application limits.
For example, the following qualitative judgements and associated values could defined for the
corrosion factor FC of CRA:
− safe-very high 0÷1
− high 2÷3
− moderate 4÷5
− low 6÷7
− very low 8÷9
− not applicable 10
In case of several corrosion forms expected and evaluated, the corrosion factors, FC,i, for each form
of corrosion are then combined to calculate the overall corrosion factor, FC, assumed as the
maximum value amongst the single corrosion factors.
Above guidelines to attribute a value to FC reflects the evidence that corrosion of CRA does not
occur as general corrosion rate with a predictable penetration rate, but on the contrary, as localized
corrosion – as for instance pitting or cracking. Accordingly, the corrosion factor assumes the meaning
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 17 of 38
of likelihood of occurrence of the considered corrosion form, independently from the time of
exposure. Such prediction also expresses a degree of uncertainties, intrinsically associated to the
localized corrosion phenomena.
3.3.3 Monitoring, NDT inspection and failure data review

Monitoring, NDT inspection and failure data represent a valuable source of information on integrity of
operating facilities.
Monitoring data from permanent probes, where installed and operated, provide information on
absolute fluid corrosivity, variations of fluid corrosivity and efficiency of chemical treatments when
performed (Ref. /21/and Ref. /22/).
NDT include a number of techniques, like: electromagnetic; ultrasonic; mechanical (caliper); electrical
(casing potential). Intelligent pig inspection of pipelines are also part of available the inspection
techniques (Ref. /24/). NDT typically provide information on the integrity status of the inspected
items.
Failure analysis also provides information on actual performance of a component at given operating
conditions.
Results from monitoring, NDT inspection and failure data review can be used:
− to validate results from corrosion predictive models;
− to adjust the results from predictive models;
− to validate fitness of in service materials;
− to assess residual thickness of inspected items.
For being used in corrosion risk assessment studies, data from all above sources usually need to be
carefully reviewed and elaborated; this activity is out the scope of this Document and needs
specialistic corrosion expertise. Application of statistic approaches is also recommended (see Ref.
/4/).

The target of this activity is to assess the entity of the consequences in case of occurrence of a
corrosion event producing effects in the operation which can impact on:
− safety;
− environment;
− asset operability.
The effects on safety of people and on the environment are “social” consequences, while the effects
on the asset operability are mainly “economical” and can include:
− production losses;
− repair interventions;
− item replacement and other corrective actions.
To assess and quantify the consequence of failure (lack of integrity) several models are available
with quite variable complexity. A simplified approach is based on the calculation of a numerical
consequence factor FOC, varying between 0 (lowest or no consequence) and 10 (maximum
consequence). The overall consequence factor FCO, whichever is the failure mode (due to internal or
external corrosion), is made up of the contribution (weight) of three factors:
− safety consequence factor F H,
− environmental consequence factor FE.
− operability consequence factor FO,
In the event of a failure, the overall consequence factor is given by the sum of the weights of the
three influencing factors as follows:
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 18 of 38
FOC = FH + FE + FO
0 → 10 0→X 0→Y 0→Z
where:
FOC Overall Consequence Factor,
FH Safety Consequence Factor,
FO Operability Consequence Factor,
FE Environmental Consequence Factor,
X Hazard Factor Weight: it represents the maximum value of the Safety Consequence Factor,
Y Operability Factor Weight: it is the maximum value of Operability Consequence Factor,
Z Environmental Factor Weight: is the maximum value of Environmental Consequence Factor,
X+Y+Z Maximum value for FOC (10).
The single values X, Y, Z shall be selected in a range between 0 and 10, provided that sum of the
three values is equal to 10.
The three consequence aspects are calculated independently from each other and then aggregated
to obtain the overall consequence factor. The assigned weights are intended to represent the actual
relevance of the parameter upon the specific consequence aspect to be evaluated.
Main parameters affecting each consequence factor, FH, FO, FE, and typical values for the relevant
weights are reported in Table 3.4. They can be adjusted based on particular context requirements.
The procedure to calculate the above consequence factors is illustrated in details in Appendix 2 of
this Document.
Consequence Factor Affecting parameters Weight (typical values)

Safety - fluid type
- fluid pressure
- fluid temperature X=4
- fluid volume available for escape
- close proximity
Environmental - close proximity
- fluid type Y=3
- fluid volume available for escape
Operability - production loss percentage
- redundancy Z=3
- shutdown time
Overall X+Y+Z = 10
Table 3.4 – Consequence factor normalization weights. Base case.
3.5 Risk matrixes

Once the corrosion factor and the overall consequence factors were calculated, the two factors can
be used on the relevant coordinates of the risk matrix (see Figure 3.1) to assess the risk level of the
item under study.
On same matrix all homogeneous items are reported, inserting the relevant code in the
corresponding risk area as it results by the values of FOC and FC. This allows to effectively visualize
and compare the risk status of the asset or facility under study.
Examples of homogeneous groups of items are:

− vessels of same process unit;
− piping of same process unit;
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 19 of 38
− wells of same field;

− flowlines of same gathering system.
For same group of items, more matrixes can be prepared for different values of the design life
parameter (see par. 3.3.2.1).
Overall Consequence Factor, FOC

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
10
9
Corrosion Factor, FC
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
<0
Legend Corrosion Risk Classes

very high
high
medium
low
very low
safe
Figure 3.1 – Corrosion risk matrix and classes of risk.
3.6 Recommendations
Starting from the risk matrixes, which represent the result of the corrosion and consequence
analysis, recommendations shall be provided to improve the reliability, i.e. decrease the corrosion
risk of the assets under evaluation.
Recommendations can be grouped in two main categories:

− recommendations for corrosion control and prevention, and
− NDT inspections.
3.6.1 Recommendations for corrosion control and prevention

Recommendations for corrosion control and prevention are associated to an item or to a group of
items showing a corrosion risk higher than expected.
For convenience, recommendations are separately issued for internal or external corrosion, based on
the prevailing corrosion forms determining the risk.
Recommendations include a number of possible intervention covering all the techniques available for
corrosion control and prevention.
For internal corrosion, the main ones are:

Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 20 of 38
− item replacement, with same or with different material;

− treatment with chemicals: corrosion inhibitor; biocide; oxygen scavenger; others;
− optimization of performed treatment with chemicals;
− application of internal coating - organic or metal;
− application of internal cathodic protection;
− introduction or improvement of corrosion monitoring techniques;
− performance of chemical analysis;
− performance of bacterial counts;
− process interventions.
Specifically for external corrosion:

− application of organic coating;
− introduction or improvement of cathodic protection;
− execution of cathodic protection surveys.
General recommendation which can arise from corrosion risk assessment studies are:
− request of additional data and information;
− request for data confirmation;
− issue of corrosion studies focussed on specific problems;
− residual life assessment;
− design of retrofitting or refurbishment studies and design documents;
− periodical revision of the corrosion risk assessment study (see par. 3.6.3).
3.6.2 NDT inspections

The corrosion risk matrixes can be used for:
− requesting the execution of (additional) inspections aimed to confirm the assessed risk level of a
given item;
− to prepare risk based inspection plans.
Request of NDT inspection can include a wide range of industrial NDT techniques; visual inspection
and ultrasonic thickness measurements (UTM) are the most common ones. Results from NDT
inspection can be conveniently used to calibrate the corrosion prediction models, based on the
specific project and operating conditions.
Risk based inspection plans can be issued for homogeneous groups of item relating the inspection
frequency and the number of measurements to be performed to the risk level of each item as
indicated in the corrosion risk matrix.
An example, referred to UTM of process piping, is shown in Table 3.5.
Piping UTM inspections

Risk Level Frequency Spacing
Very High every 6 months 4 circumferential readings every 0.5 m
High every year 4 circumferential readings every 1 m
Medium every 2 years 4 circumferential readings every 2 m
Low every 3 years 4 circumferential readings every 2 m
Very Low every 5 years 4 circumferential readings every 2 m
Safe Optional 4 circumferential readings every 2 m
Table 3.5 – Example of UTM inspection plan for process piping.

Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 21 of 38
3.6.3 Corrosion Risk Assessment update

CorrRA Studies need to be periodically revised based on updated data, in particular operating data.
Oil and gas production assets, in fact, differently from downstream facilities, are exposed to
conditions which vary along the life of the assets. Typical parameters which modify with time are:
pressure and temperature; flow rates; water cut; gas oil ratio; concentration of contaminants.
Furthermore, the recommendations for corrosion control provided in a CorrRA, once implemented,
can significantly modify the corrosion risk and this shall be verified by a re-assessment of the
corrosion factors and issue of new matrixes.
For above reasons, as part of the corrosion integrity management process (see Ref. /17/), the
CorrRA Studies shall be periodically re-issued incorporating updated data and information thus
reflecting the modifications occurred in the reference period.
3.7 Corrosion risk assessment flow diagram

The procedure for execution of corrosion risk assessment studies is illustrated in Figure 3.2 where
main supports and activities are shown for each sub task.
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 22 of 38
− Field Reports
− Inspection Reports
SUPPORTS
INPUT AND
− Data Management System

− Project specifications
− Data Management System − Design premises − Statistics − Data Management System
− P&I Diagrams − PVT Studies − Software tools − Software tools
− Applicable normative − Material Balances − Applicable normative − Applicable normative − Applicable normative
− − P&I Diagrams − − −
SUB-TASKS
Item Data Collection Corrosion Consequence Risk Matrixes Recommendations

Identification and Review Analysis Analysis
− Item selection − Anagraphic data − Corrion mechanisms identif. − safety cons. factor calc. − Internal corrosion risk matrixes − Corrosion control recomm.
− Item codification − Fluid data − Material review and verification − environmental cons. factor calc. − External corrosion risk matrixes − Inspection
− Environmental data − Corrosion rate calculation − operability cons. factor calc. − CorrRA update
ACTIVITIES
− Operating data − Corrosion assessment − FOC calculation. −

− Fluid treatments with chemicals − monitoring data review −
− Coatings and CP data − Inspection data review −
− Corrosion monitoring − Failure review −
− Inspections data − FC calculation. −
− Failures data −
− Painting data −
Figure 3.2 – Corrosion risk assessment flow diagram.

Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 23 of 38
4. APPENDIX 1 – CORROSION ALLOWANCE AND THICKNESS RELATED PARAMETERS
4.1 Corrosion allowance

Calculation of the corrosion factor, FC, of carbon and low alloy steel 2 pipes and vessels explicitly
considers the pipe or vessel wall thickness available for corrosion, reported as corrosion allowance.
(see Par. 3.3.2 in this Document). For calculation of the correct value for corrosion allowance, the
following thickness related parameters are defined:
t nominal wall thickness
tMIN design wall thickness required for pressure containment and mechanical resistance.
tCD declared design corrosion allowance: it is the part of the wall thickness required by design
because of corrosion.
tCA actual design corrosion allowance: it is the true extent of wall thickness to which corrosion
could be tolerated during operation; it can be greater than tCD.
If approximation to the closest available API pipe diameter and tolerance factor are ignored, the
following relationship can be stated:
t tMIN tCD
In next paragraphs, the following issues are covered:

− actual design corrosion allowance based on expected corrosion modes;
− residual corrosion allowance in facilities already in operation.
4.1.1 Corrosion allowance and corrosion modes

The actual design corrosion allowance depends on the corrosion mode, that is the type of damage or
failure caused by a given corrosion mechanism, strictly related to the morphology of the corrosion
attack. Typical morphologies are:
− uniform corrosion;
− localised corrosion;
− cracking.
In case of ideal uniform corrosion occurring all over the pipe or vessel surface, critical conditions are
reached when the residual thickness reaches the tMIN thickness. If the internal pressure exceeds the
maximum allowed pressure after corrosion, the expected failure mode is the pipe or vessel rupture.
Uniform corrosion seldom occurs, most of failures occurring by localised corrosion or cracking.
Localised corrosion and cracking are most of corrosion forms in oil and gas industry. Localised
corrosion includes:
− CO2 pitting corrosion;
− CO2 longitudinal grooving (mesa or step corrosion);
− pitting by microbial induced corrosion
− pitting by oxygen corrosion
− erosion corrosion attacks.
Most common cracking mechanisms are:

− sulphide stress cracking;
− hydrogen induced cracking;
− chloride stress cracking.
2
The corrosion allowance is calculated for carbon and low alloy steels only, not for corrosion resistant alloys.
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 24 of 38
As far as localised corrosion is concerned, the following corrosion modes 3 can be defined:
α’ severe damage by pitting, reaching a critical size detectable by inspection methods, as for
instance intelligent pig inspections of pipelines;
α” leakage due to pitting penetrating through wall thickness;
β’ severe damage due to longitudinal grooving (mesa or step corrosion) detectable during
inspection;
β” rupture due to critical grooving.
Cracking causes the sudden rupture of the item and cracking phenomena are assumed to occur
instantaneously and conservatively no corrosion rate is associated.
4.1.2 Actual design corrosion allowance and failure mode

In case of corrosion defects, that is of attacks interesting a very limited portion of the exposed metal
surface, the actual design corrosion allowance, tCA, can be greater than the declared design
corrosion allowance, tCD. This means that a part of the design wall thickness required for mechanical
containment (tMIN) in excess to tCD, can be reasonably assumed to be available before critical defect
size conditions are reached.
The criteria adopted for calculating the actual design corrosion allowance can vary case by case.
Some approaches from the technical literature are reviewed in next paragraphs.
4.1.2.1 ASME B31G

ANSI/ASME B 31G (Ref. /3/) provides criteria to evaluate a corrosion defect considering the depth of
the defect and the length of the corroded area (see Figure 4.1). Acceptance of a corrosion defect is
assessed based on the ratio d/t between maximum corrosion depth, d, and pipe wall thickness, t, and
a parameter,
where L is the length of the corroded area and DE the pipe external diameter. The parabolic criteria
provided by the norm is illustrated in Figure 4.2: the length of the acceptable defect increases as the
ratio d/t decreases, with an asymptote close to d/t=0.2. In part 3 of the norm, the maximum value of L
are provided up to values of d/t=0.8 for different pipe diameter and thickness. In other words,
acceptance of the defect is assessed not with respect to the corrosion allowance values, tCA or tCD,
but considering the combination of defect and pipe parameters, i.e.: d, t, L and DE.
3
J.D. Edwards, T. Sydberger and K.J. Mork - Det Norske Veritas (DNV) - "Reliability based design of CO2 corrosion control
- Corrosion 96 , The Nace International Annual Conference and Corrosion Show, Paper n° 29.
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 25 of 38
.
Figure 4.1 – Size identification parameters on internal defect in a pipe (from Ref. /3/).
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
FAIL
0.500
d/t
0.400
0.300
SAFE
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
L/((DE/2)xt)^0.5
Figure 4.2 – Safe and fail regions based on defect sizes parameters (Ref. /3/).
4.1.2.2 Sydberger et al.

Sydberger and others 4,5 , in accordance with ANSI/ASME B 31G, derived specific criteria based on a
probabilistic approach of the failure mode.
4
T. Sydberger, J. D. Edwards and K.J. Mork - Det Norske Veritas Industry AS - "A probabilistic approach to prediction of
CO2 corrosion, and its application to life cycle cost analyses of oil and gas equipment" - Corrosion 95 , The Nace
International Annual Conference and Corrosion Show, Paper n° 65.
5
J.D. Edwards, T. Sydberger and K.J. Mork - Det Norske Veritas (DNV) - "Reliability based design of CO2 corrosion control
- Corrosion 96 , The Nace International Annual Conference and Corrosion Show, Paper n° 29.
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 26 of 38
For localized pitting corrosion (corrosion mode α') it is proposed:
tCA 0.80 × t
with:
t ‐ tCA ≥ 5 mm.
For localized full penetrating pitting corrosion (mode α”) it is:
tCA 0.95 × t
This corrosion mode usually applies to, in particular, tubing, where most of corrosion failures, apart
cracking, manifest as wall penetration.
For longitudinal grooving (corrosion mode β') it is proposed:
PI - PE
t CA = t - 1.25 DE
SMYS
and for mode β”:
PI - PE
t CA = t - DE
SMYS
where:
PI internal design pressare (MPa)
PE external pressure (MPa)
DE pipe external diameter (mm)
SMYS specified minimum yield strength (MPa).
4.1.2.3 EFC Document N. 23

The EFC Document N. 23 (Ref. /16/), Section 8, provides a procedure to calculate the maximum
allowed corrosion allowance for localised corrosion in general.
The document allows to consider up to 20 % of the design wall thickness required for mechanical
containment as corrodible. This leads to the following expression for actual corrosion allowance: 6
tCA = tCD + 0.2 × (t - tCD)
6
In the EFC model, the pipe manufacturing tolerances, as defined for instance by API 5L, are also considered.
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 27 of 38
4.2 Residual thickness allowable for corrosion

In case of corrosion risk assessment of existing structures, the actual design corrosion allowance
shall be replaced by the residual part of the actual design corrosion allowance, i.e. the original one
less the amount consumed by corrosion from start up to the moment the assessment is performed.
The following thickness related parameters are defined:

tCONS consumed thickness. It is the thickness of the wall consumed from start up to the moment the
assessment is performed.
tRES residual thickness. It is the part of the actual design corrosion allowance still available at the
moment the assessment is performed.
Above parameters are related to the actual design corrosion allowance as follows (see Figure 4.3):
tRES = tCA - tCONS
tCONS can be calculated based on past corrosion rate values or can be estimated from monitoring,
inspection and failure data.
If the model adopted for calculating the corrosion rate is conservative, it can occur that tCONS is
greater than tCA (or greater than t), leading to tRES < 0. This result in principle is correct, for instance
when corrosion failures actually occurred in the past operating life; sometime, however, it reflects the
conservativity of the prediction models.
tCONS
tCA
tRES
Figure 4.3 – Thickness related parameters in a corroded wall.

Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 28 of 38
5. APPENDIX 2 – CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS

The overall consequence factor, FOC, is a normalized parameter used to assess and quantify the
consequence of failure (lack of integrity). The overall consequence factor is made up of the weighted
contribution of three factors:
− hazard consequence factor F H,
− environmental consequence factor FE.
− operability consequence factor FO,
with:
FOC = FH + FE + FO
0 → 10 0→X 0→Y 0→Z
5.2 Hazard consequence factor FH

Calculation of the hazard consequence factor, FH, is based on the following parameters:
− the nature of fluids:
− release of toxic compounds, i.e. H2S,
− flammable releases with potential to cause fires and explosions,
− the operating conditions (pressure, temperature):
− releases with potential to cause personnel injuries, i.e. hot or high pressure releases,
− the quantity of fluids which may be released; it is evaluated considering:
− flow rates, in case of pipes,
− capacity, in case of vessels and tanks,
− the evaluated component location,
− the tentative number of persons who may be consequently injured (population density).
The following factors are defined:

− fluid type FF,H,
− fluid pressure FP,H,
− fluid temperature FT,H,
− fluid volume available for escape (fluid flow rate) FFR,H,
− close proximity (location) FL,H.
The contribution, or weight, of each factor shall be estimated on the basis of the associated effects;
the values in Table 5.1 are proposed as base case.
Parameter Factor Range of values

Fluid type FF,H 0.0 – 3.0
Fluid pressure FP,H 1.0 – 3.0
Fluid temperature FT,H 1.0 – 1.5
Fluid flow rate FFR,H 1.0 – 3.0
Close proximity FL,H 1.0 – 3.0
Table 5.1 – Ranges of values for the parameters composing FH
5.2.1 Fluid type factor FF,H

It express the hazard associated with the nature of the process fluid; numerical values are assigned
based on:
− type of fluid;
− content of H2S;
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 29 of 38
− Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) or Gas Liquid Ratio (GLR) 7 .
and based on the following considerations:

− hydrocarbon containing H2S: H2S toxicity, risk of fire and explosion,
− hydrocarbon not containing H2S: the risk is limited to fire and explosion,
− amine solutions: it is harmful if inhaled, corrosive to the skin and eyes and causes severe
irritation of the respiratory tract. It releases flammable gases and forms readily explosive mixture
with air,
− glycol: the hazard is related to the risk of inhalation toxicity,
− formation water: a low risk factor of 1.5 (higher than potable water) considers the presence of a
small percentage of oil and gas in the water, together with residuals of chemicals added to the
produced fluid. The water itself causes a risk of burns,
− waters (other): the hazard is just related to the risk of burn.
The values in Table 5.2 are proposed as base case.
Fluid type xH2S [%MOL] GOR or GLR [Sm3/m3] FF,H

>0 3.0
Gas and gas with condensates (GH) (-)
=0 2.5
>0 ≥ 100 3.0
>0 < 100 2.5
Liquid hydrocarbons and multiphase systems (LH)
=0 ≥ 100 2.5
=0 < 100 2.0
Stabilized oil (O)
(-) (-) 2.0
Hot oil (HO)
Glycol (GL) (-) (-) 1.8
>0 2.5
Amine solutions (AM) (-)
=0 1.8
Production or formation water (PW) (-) (-) 1.5
Chemicals (corr. inhibitors, scale inhibitors, wax inhib.) (CH) (-) (-) 1.5
Sodium hypochlorite (SH) (-) (-) 1.4
Sea water (SW) or
Fresh water (FW) or (-) (-) 1.2
Brackish water (BW)
Utility water (seawater, cooling water, potable water) (W) or
Steam (S) or
(-) (-) 1.0
Foam (F) or
Inert gas (IG)
Empty line (-) (-) 0.0
Table 5.2 – Fluid type factor FF,H
7
The Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) is determined by means of the following formula:
GOR = QG / QO
where:
3
QG gas production flow rate (Sm /d),
3
QO oil production flow rate (m /d).
The Gas Liquid Ratio (GLR) is defined as:

GLR = QG / (QO + QW )
where:
3
QW water production flow rate (m /d).
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 30 of 38
5.2.2 Fluid pressure factor FP,H

The hazard associated with a failure increases with the operating pressure of the item under
evaluation.
Fluid type Fluid pressure P [bar] FP,H

P ≥ 35 3.0
Gas and gas with condensates (GH) or
15 ≤ P < 35 2.5
Liquid hydrocarbons and multiphase systems (LH) or
Hot oil (HO) 1 < P < 15 2.0
P=1 1.5
Formation water (PW) or P ≥ 15 2.0
Sea water (SW) or
Fresh water (FW) or P < 15 1.5
Brackish water (BW)
Stabilized oil (O) P≥1 1.5
Glycol (GL) or
Amine solutions (AM) or
P≥1 1.5
Sodium hypochlorite (SH) or
Chemicals (corr. inhibitors, scale inhibitors, wax inhib.) (CH)
Steam (S) or
P≥1 1.0
Foam (F) or
Inert gas (IG)
Table 5.3 – Fluid pressure factor FP,H
5.2.3 Fluid temperature factor FT,H

The fluid temperature represents a potential hazard to personnel in the immediate vicinity of a failure.
Fluid temperature [°C] FT,H

T ≥ 100 1.5
70 ≤ T < 100 1.3
50 ≤ T < 70 1.1
T < 50 1.0
Table 5.4 – Fluid temperature factor FT,H
5.2.4 Fluid volume available for escape (fluid flow rate) factor FFR,H
The fluid volume available for escape factors can be estimated in different ways depending on the
functionality of the component:
− for component conveying fluids (flowlines, pipes, etc.), the reference parameter is the flow rate;
different ranges are assumed for liquid and gas flows. For buried flowlines and tubing strings the
factor is assigned independently from hydrocarbon rate, taking into account that for such
components, loss of integrity does not involve release of hydrocarbon directly in contact with
persons;
− for components containing fluid (vessels, separators, tanks, storage vessels, etc.) the reference
parameter is the capacity, V.

Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 31 of 38
Facilities Layout Fluid type Fluid rate / Capacity FFR,H

Production wells or
Water injection wells or (-) (-) (-) 1.0
Gas injection wells
Onshore 3.0
Wellheads Offshore platform (-) (-) 3.0
Offshore subsea 1.0
Sealines (-) (-) (-) 1.0
Risers (-) (-) (-) 1.5
Buried (-) (-) 1.0
3
QO ≥ 100 m /d 3.0
Liquid hydrocarbons and 3
50 ≤ QO < 100 m /d 2.5
multiphase systems (LH) 3
QO < 50 m /d 2.0
3
QG ≥ 500,000 Sm /d 3.0
Flowlines or Gas and gas with condensates 3
Trunklines or 100,000 ≤ QG < 500,000 Sm /d 2.5
(GH) 3
Oil and gas pipelines or Unburied QG < 100,000 Sm /d 2.0
3
Piping Formation water (PW)or QW ≥ 25 m /d 2.0
Sea water (SW) or 3
15 ≤ QW < 25 m /d 1.5
Fresh water (FW) or
3
Brackish water (BW) QW < 15 m /d 1.0
Glycol (GL) or
(-) 1.5
Amine solutions (AM)
3
Liquid hydrocarbons and V ≥ 10 m 3.0
multiphase systems (LH) or 3
5 ≤ V < 10 m 2.5
Gas and gas with condensates
Vessels or (GH) V< 5 m
3
2.0
Heat exchangers or Glycol (GL) or
(-) (-) 1.5
Above ground tanks Amine solutions (AM)
Formation water (PW)or
Sea water (SW) or
(-) 1.0
Fresh water (FW) or
Brackish water (BW)
Table 5.5 – Fluid flow rate factor FFR,H
5.2.5 Close proximity (location) factor FL,H

The close proximity factor considers the potential impact of an uncontrolled condition on life near the
considered facility.

Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 32 of 38
Facilities Accessibility Location Manned/Unmanned FL,H

Vessels or Manned plant area 2.5
Onshore (-)
Heat exchangers or Unmanned plant area 1.5
Above ground tanks or Manned platform 3.0
Piping Offshore (-)
Unmanned platform 1.5
Close to a dwelling / city 3.0
Oil and gas pipelines or Close to a public road / railway 2.5
Flowlines or Onshore Country area (-) 2.0
Trunklines Land, desert and swamp area 1.0
Parks / wildlife preserve 2.5
Sealines (-) (-) (-) 1.0
Risers (-) (-) (-) 1.5
Close to a public road / railway 2.5
Onshore Country area (-) 2.0
Production wells
Land, desert and swamp area 1.0
Manned platform 3.0
Offshore (-)
Unmanned platform 1.5

Close to a public road / railway 2.5
Onshore Country area (-) 2.0
Wellheads Land, desert and swamp area 1.0
Offshore platform 3.0
(-) (-)
Offshore subsea 1.0
Water or gas injection wells (-) (-) (-) 1.0
Table 5.6 – Location factor FL,H
5.2.6 Overall hazard consequence factor FH

The overall hazard consequence factor, FH, is then calculated as product of the individual factors
contributing to hazard. In order to reproduce the hazard factor on a scale ranging from 0 to a
maximum value equal to X as assumed, a normalization factor NFH is introduced.
The normalization factor and the overall hazard consequence factor are calculated as follows:
NFH = (max. FF,H × max. FP,H × max. FT,H × max. FFR,H × max. FL,H) / X
FH = (FF,H × FP,H × FT,H × FFR,H × FL,H) / NFH
5.3 Operability consequence factor FO

To calculate the operability consequence factor the following factors are defined:
− production loss percentage (fluid flow rate) FPL,O,
− redundancy FR,O,
− shutdown (repair) time FST,O.
The contribution, or weight, of each factor shall be estimated on the basis of the associated effects;
the values in Table 5.7 are proposed as base case.
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 33 of 38

Production loss percentage FPL,O 1.00 – 4.00
Redundancy FR,O 0.50 – 1.00
Shutdown time FST,O 0.85 – 4.50
Table 5.7 – Ranges of values for the parameters composing FO
5.3.1 Production loss factor FPL,O

In most cases, for safety reasons, the occurrence of a failure causes the immediate shutdown with a
consequent production loss. The production loss factor can be estimated in different ways depending
on the functionality of the component:
− for component conveying fluids (flowlines, pipes, etc.) the relevant parameter is the flow rate;
different ranges are assumed for liquid and gas flows,
− for components containing fluid (vessels, separators, tanks, storage vessels, etc.) the parameter
assumed is the capacity.
Facilities Fluid type Fluid rate / Capacity FPL,O

Formation water (PW) or
Water injection/disposal wells or Sea water (SW) or
(-) 3.0
Wellheads Fresh water (FW) or
Brackish water (BW)
3
QO ≥ 100 m /d 4.0
Liquid hydrocarbons and multiphase 3
50 ≤ QO < 100 m /d 3.5
Production wells or systems (LH) 3
QO < 50 m /d 3.0
Gas injection wells or 3
QG ≥ 500,000 Sm /d 4.0
Wellheads 3
Gas and gas with condensates (GH) 100,000 ≤ QG < 500,000 Sm /d 3.5
3
QG < 100,000 Sm /d 3.0
3
QO ≥ 100 m /d 4.0
Liquid hydrocarbons and multiphase 3
50 ≤ QO < 100 m /d 3.5
systems (LH) 3
QO < 50 m /d 3.0
3
Flowlines or QG ≥ 500,000 Sm /d 4.0
3
Trunklines or Gas and gas with condensates (GH) 100,000 ≤ QG < 500,000 Sm /d 3.5
Oil and gas pipelines or QG < 100,000 Sm /d
3
3.0
Sealines or 3
Formation water (PW) or QW ≥ 25 m /d 2.0
Risers or
Sea water (SW) or 3
15 ≤ QW < 25 m /d 1.5
Piping
Fresh water (FW) or 3
Brackish water (BW) QW < 15 m /d 1.0
Glycol (GL) or
(-) 1.5
3
Liquid hydrocarbons and multiphase V ≥ 10 m 4.0
3
systems (LH) or 5 ≤ V < 10 m 3.5
Gas and gas with condensates (GH) V< 5 m
3
3.0
Vessels or Glycol or
Heat exchangers or (-) 1.5
Amine solutions
Above ground tanks Formation water (PW) or
Sea water (SW) or
(-) 1.0
Fresh water (FW) or
Brackish water (BW)
Table 5.8 – Production loss factor FPL,O
5.3.2 Redundancy factor FR,O

In case of failure, the function of some components may be compensated by redundant components,
without total production loss.
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 34 of 38
Redundancy FR,O
Not redundant 1.0
Partially redundant 0.8
Redundant 0.5
Unknown 1.0
Table 5.9 – Redundancy factor FR,O
5.3.3 Shutdown time factor FST,O

The time (or in reality, cost) to carry out any necessary repair and regain the full production is
another factor to determine the operability consequences of a failure.
Shutdown time factor depends upon well accessibility (FWA,O, for wells and wellheads only), rig
availability (FRA,O, for wells only) and replacement materials availability (FMA,O for all items), and is
calculated as follows:
FST,O = Constant x FWA,O x FRA,O x FMA,O
The number of involved sub-parameters (FWA,O, FRA,O, FMA,O) depends on the considered facility as
shown in the table below. The values in Table 5.10 are proposed as base case.
Facilities Layout Diameter, Ø [inch] FST,O

Production wells or
Water injection wells or (-) (-) 4.5 × FWA,O × FRA,O × FMA,O
Gas injection wells
Wellheads (-) (-) 4.0 × FWA,O × FMA,O
Sealines (-) (-) 4.0 × FMA,O
Risers (-) (-) 3.5 × FMA,O
Vessels or
Heat exchangers or (-) (-) 3.0 × FMA,O
Above ground tanks
Flowlines or Ø ≥ 10” 2.5 × FMA,O
Buried
Trunk lines or Ø < 10” 2.0 × FMA,O
Pipelines or Ø ≥ 10” 1.2 × FMA,O
Piping Unburied
Ø < 10” 1.0 × FMA,O
Table 5.10 – Shutdown time factor FST,O
It has been supposed an operability impact that increases with the difficulty of the repair operations
and/or spare availability.
Accessibility (for wells only) FWA,O

Subsea 1.00
Offshore 0.85
Onshore 0.75
Table 5.11 – Well accessibility factor FWA,O

Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 35 of 38
Rig availability (for wells only) FRA,O

Low 1.00
High 0.90
On site 0.80
Unknown 1.00
Table 5.12 – Rig availability factor FRA,O
Spare material availability FMA,O

Low 1.00
High 0.95
On site 0.85
Unknown 1.00
Table 5.13 – Spare material availability factor FMA,O
5.3.4 Overall operability consequence factor FO

The Overall Operability Consequence Factor FO is calculated as the product of the individual factors
contributing to operability; to reproduce the overall factor on a scale ranging from 0 to a maximum
value equal to Y as assumed, a normalization factor NFO has been introduced.
The normalization factor and the overall operability factor are calculated as follows:
NFO = (max. FPL,O × max. FR,O × max. FST,O) / Y
FO = FPL,O × FR,O × FST,O / NFO
5.4 Environmental consequence factor FE

The Environmental Consequence Factor is intended as the risk of fluid release associated to an
uncontrolled condition (failure) evaluated from the point of view of environmental impact
(environmental pollution, contamination etc.). The environmental consequence factor takes into
account the environmental laws in force in the countries where the considered assets are installed.
The factors contributing to the environmental risk are:

− close proximity (location) FL,E,
− fluid type FF,E,
− fluid volume available for escape FA,E.
The contribution (weight) of each factor to environment has been estimated on the basis of the
associated effects.
The following weight ranges, representing the relevance of the parameter on environment, have
been assigned.

Close proximity FL,E 2.0 – 5.0
Fluid type FF,E 0.0 – 3.0
Fluid volume available for escape FA,E 0.5 – 2.5
Table 5.14 – Ranges of values for the parameters composing FE
5.4.1 Close proximity (location) factor FL,E

Close proximity considers the potential impact of an uncontrolled condition on environment near the
considered facility.
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 36 of 38
The following criteria have been assumed to take into account item location effects:
Facilities Accessibility Location FL,E

Oil and gas pipelines or Close to a dwelling / city 4.0
Flowlines or (-) Close to a public road / railway 2.5
Trunklines Country area 2.5
Sealines or
(-) (-) 4.0
Risers
Vessels or Parks / wildlife preserve 5.0
Heat exchangers or Close to a dwelling / city 4.0
Above ground tanks or Onshore Close to a public road / railway 2.5
Piping or
Country area 2.5
Production wells or
Water injection wells or
Gas injection wells or Offshore (-) 4.0
Wellheads
Table 5.15 – Location factor FL,E
Note: Onshore vessels, heat exchangers, above ground tanks and piping are installed in plants that are confined
areas. The parameter location refers to the place where the plant is installed.
5.4.2 Fluid type factor FF,E

The risk for the environment, associated with a particular failure, is heavily dependent on the nature
of the process fluid and its pollutant characteristics.
This factor is not necessarily the same evaluated for the hazard and from this point of view the
maximum impact on environment has been associated to liquid hydrocarbon, while the
environmental impact of gas release has been assumed less significant.
The following type of fluid factors have been assigned:
Fluid type Gas type FF,E

Liquid hydrocarbons and multiphase systems (LH) (-) 3.0
Stabilized oil (O) or
(-) 2.2
Hot oil (HO)
Gas with condensates 2.0
Gas and gas with condensates (GH) Wet gas 1.2
Dry gas 1.1
Glycol (GL) or
(-) 1.8
Formation water (PW) (-) 1.5
Chemicals (corr. inhibitors, scale inhib., wax inhib.) (CH) (-) 1.2
Sea water (SW) or
Fresh water (FW) or (-) 1.0
Brackish water (BW)
Foam (F) (-) 1.0
Sodium hypochlorite (SH) or
(-) 0.0
Steam (S) or
Inert gas (IG)
Empty line (-) 0.0
Table 5.16 – Fluid type factor FF,E
The risk factors have been assigned on the basis of the expected impact of the fluid on environment:
Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 37 of 38
− Oil, condensates: oil/condensates may damage the environment in many different ways: kill
directly organisms, kill through poisoning contact, kill through exposure to water-soluble toxic
components of oil, destruction of food sources of higher species and so on. Chemicals are added
to this fluid.
− Glycol, amine solutions: chronic eco-toxicological effects and long-term effects problems may
arise.
− Formation water: a low risk factor of 1.5 considers the presence of a small percentage of oil in
water, together with residuals of chemicals added to the produced fluid.
− Wet and dry gas, seawater, fresh water, brackish water: the risk to the environment is low.
5.4.3 Fluid volume available for escape factor FA,E

It is the mass of fluid that could be potentially released in the environment in uncontrolled conditions.
Liquid and gas flow rates for pipes and mass capacity for tank and vessels have been assumed as
indicative of the mass of fluid potentially available for escape in case of failure.
The Fluid Volume Available for Escape Factor (FA,E) depends upon mass of fluid (FFR,E) and time
needed to control fluid release (FT,E) and is calculated as follows:
FA,E = FFR,E x FT,E
The following factors have been assigned:
Facilities Fluid type Fluid rate / Capacity FFR,E

Sea water (SW) or
Water injection wells or Fresh water (FW) or (-) 1.0
Wellheads Brackish water (BW)
Formation water (PW) (-) 2.5
3
QO ≥ 100 m /d 2.5
50 ≤ QO < 100 m /d 2.0
Production wells or multiphase systems (LH) 3
QO < 50 m /d 1.8
Gas injection wells or 3
QG ≥ 500,000 Sm /d 2.5
Wellheads Gas and gas with condensates 3
100,000 ≤ QG < 500,000 Sm /d 2.0
(GH) 3
QG < 100,000 Sm /d 1.8
3
QO ≥ 100 m /d 2.5
50 ≤ QO < 100 m /d 2.0
multiphase systems (LH) 3
QO < 50 m /d 1.8
3
Flowlines or QG ≥ 500,000 Sm /d 2.5
Gas and gas with condensates 3
Trunklines or 100,000 ≤ QG < 500,000 Sm /d 2.0
(GH)
Pipelines or 3
QG < 100,000 Sm /d 1.8
Sealines or Formation water (PW) (-) 1.5
Risers or
Sea water (SW) or
Piping
Fresh water (FW) or (-) 1.0
Brackish water (BW)
Glycol (GL) or
(-) 1.5
3
Gas and gas with condensates V ≥ 10 m 2.5
(GH) or 5 ≤ V < 10 m
3
2.0
multiphase systems (LH) V< 5 m 1.8
Vessels or
Heat exchangers or Glycol (GL) or
(-) 1.5
Above ground tanks Amine solutions (AM)
Formation water (PW) or
Sea water (SW) or
(-) 1.0
Fresh water (FW) or
Brackish water (BW)
Table 5.17 – Mass of fluid factor FFR,E

Rev.0 April 2010
Sh 38 of 38
The contribution of the Fluid Flow Rate Factor to the environmental risk depend upon the time
needed to control fluid release in case of blow out.
Expected time to control fluid release FT,E

Critical (very long period to manage uncontrolled fluid release) 1.0
Long 0.8
Short 0.5
Unknown 1.0
Table 5.18 – Time needed to control fluid release factor FT,E
5.4.4 Overall environmental consequence factor FE

The Overall Environmental Consequence Factor FE is calculated as the product of the singular
factors contributing to environmental impact; to reproduce the overall factor FE on a scale ranging
from 0 to a maximum value equal to Z as assumed, a normalization factor NFE has been introduced.
The normalization factor and the overall environmental consequence factor are calculated as follows:
NFE = max. FL,E × max. FF,E × max. FA,E / Z
FE = FL,E × FF,E × FA,E / NFE

20557e00 Corrosion Risk Assessment Methodology

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

20557e00 Corrosion Risk Assessment Methodology

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Eni S.p.A.

Exploration & Production Division

CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD

This document is property of Eni S.p.A. Exploration & Production Division.

Rev. 0 April 2010

CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

5.3.1 Production loss factor FPL,O

The targets of this Company document are:

1.3.2 ENI Company Standards

1.3.3 ENI Company Documents

1.3.4 Other Documents

1.4 Acronyms and abbreviations

Symbol or Unit Definition

CRA’s (-) Corrosion resistant alloys

2.1 The corrosion risk assessment studies

The targets of corrosion risk assessment are:

2.2 The corrosion risk

To overcome these inconvenient, a semi quantitative approach is adopted, based on calculations of

2.3 Execution of corrosion risk assessment studies

2.4 Supports to the execution of corrosion risk assessment studies

3. CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

3.1 Facilities and item identification

Facilities Type of components Extent Exposure side Remarks

Table 3.1 – Guidelines for item identification.

− Production Pipelines Unit 180

3.2 Data collection and review

Data Category Main data Reference Documents

Table 3.2 – Data categories and main sources.

3.3 Corrosion analysis

FC represents the probability of a failure caused by a corrosion process; it is a normalized parameter

Above steps are illustrated in next paragraphs.

3.3.1 Material review and corrosion mechanisms identification

Exposure Affected Prediction Remarks and reference

coupled materials /20/)

3.3.2 Corrosion assessment and corrosion factors calculation

The two approaches are discussed in next paragraphs.

3.3.2.1 Corrosion factor assessment for weight loss corrosion forms

at design or before start-up:

where tCONS is the thickness consumed from start up.

3.3.2.2 Corrosion factor assessment for localized corrosion forms

3.3.3 Monitoring, NDT inspection and failure data review

3.4 Consequence analysis

Consequence Factor Affecting parameters Weight (typical values)

Table 3.4 – Consequence factor normalization weights. Base case.

3.5 Risk matrixes

Examples of homogeneous groups of items are:

− wells of same field;

Overall Consequence Factor, FOC

Legend Corrosion Risk Classes

Figure 3.1 – Corrosion risk matrix and classes of risk.

Recommendations can be grouped in two main categories:

3.6.1 Recommendations for corrosion control and prevention

For internal corrosion, the main ones are:

− item replacement, with same or with different material;

Specifically for external corrosion:

3.6.2 NDT inspections

An example, referred to UTM of process piping, is shown in Table 3.5.

Piping UTM inspections

Table 3.5 – Example of UTM inspection plan for process piping.

3.6.3 Corrosion Risk Assessment update

3.7 Corrosion risk assessment flow diagram

− Data Management System