You are on page 1of 9

SPE 103922

Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment for Multiphase Flow Pipeline Systems


P.G. Puente, SPE, and C. Collado, Scandpower PT

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers


Introduction
This paper was prepared for presentation at the First International Oil Conference and Exhibition Among several components of an IMP are methods to
in Mexico held in Cancun, Mexico, 31 August2 September 2006.
directly evaluate a pipeline system internally and
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
determine its integrity. These methods could be internal
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to inspection tools or hydro-testing. In many occasions the
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at availability of internal inspection tools, facilities to launch
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
and receive inspections devices and environmental
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is restrictions do not permit direct internal inspection of the
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous pipelines systems. Additionally, some systems due to
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
the service they provide may not interrupt service for
periods of time necessary to complete an in-line
Abstract inspection. In these and other cases Direct Assessment
Owners, operators, regulatory entities and non- could be used to determine the pipeline susceptibility to
governmental agencies focus their attention on pipeline internal corrosion.
Integrity Management Plans (IMP) to address the safety
and reliability of hydrocarbon pipelines as they cross ICDA is a planned and closed loop process designed to
environmentally sensitive areas as well as densely assess the internal integrity of pipeline systems
populated areas. IMP includes a base line assessment transporting hydrocarbons. The ICDA process
prioritizing the inspection and remediation of expected described in this article uses existing proven
sensitive areas. Direct Assessment (DA) along with technologies to develop risk-based internal corrosion
internal inspection, hydro-test and other equivalent susceptibility profiles for pipeline systems. Once the
methods to ascertain the condition of the pipeline are critical locations have been determined then non-
used as IMP assessment methodologies. invasive and non-destructive techniques like radiography
or ultrasonic thickness measurement could be used to
The topic to be covered in this article is Internal Direct confirm wall thinning; if no corrosion damage exists then
Assessment which includes Erosional Velocity (EV) in other locations along the pipeline are less likely to be
addition to Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA). corroded. As part of the direct assessment post-process
This article utilizes the analysis of an onshore gas results of the inspection findings and model outputs are
pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico to identify possible areas compared, and then tuning of the model is done until
susceptible to corrosion. agreement with measured results is reached. In this
way the loop is closed and it is ready for a new cycle.
Multiphase flow analysis simulates the characteristics
and specific fluid behavior to determine erosional Multiphase flow transient modeling allows determination
velocity and internal corrosion in pipelines. A multiphase of key flow characteristics to determine the overall risk-
flow simulator will be used to obtain the specific flow based internal corrosion susceptibility profile. Main flow
characteristics to evaluate EV and ICDA for the above characteristics are profiles for: pressure, temperature,
mentioned pipeline system. Internal corrosion is water film velocity, pH, fluid phase velocities, fluid phase
analyzed both as top of the line corrosion and corrosion superficial velocities, partial pressure of CO2, shear
at the bottom of the line. In addition multiphase flow stress between water film and pipeline wall, flow regime
simulation provides accurate information related to fluids indicator, and critical velocity. All the mentioned
velocity and residence time. parameters and additional information from the model is
used in determining the probability of corrosion
The internal corrosion rate can be related to residence susceptibility at each segment of the pipeline system. It
time of water and other electrolytes to formulate effective is important to mention that sweet corrosion exists only if
mitigation processes. This could serve as the basis for a a water film is wetting the pipeline wall.
mitigation program and significantly increase the useful
life of a pipeline system. A risk-based internal corrosion profile for a pipeline from
the Gulf of Mexico shore to a processing system in
2 SPE 103922

Mexico onshore was developed. This pipeline is 65.7 to continue monitoring sites were electrolytes
Km in length and transports gas, condensate and water. accumulate.
This pipeline is in the design phase and is estimated to 6. Update the Pipeline Integrity Plan and restart the
be 36 inch in diameter. quality cycle at the first step indicated above.

Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment ICDA Multiphase transient flow model


The objective of ICDA is to identify pipeline segments Sophisticated and complex multiphase simulators are
susceptible to internal corrosion and then perform an used for development of systems flow simulations. Main
internal corrosion hazard assessment on those components of these models are:
segments (1). ICDA utilizes existing proven
technologies to develop a risk-based internal corrosion Pipeline Profile
susceptibility profile for pipeline systems. The Special attention must be placed in the development
assessment results from the ICDA are utilized to identify of the pipeline profile. This profile should follow the
specific sites for evaluation of corrosion damage using pipeline route as closely as possible. There should be
non-destructive examinations to verify the pipeline no simplifications or grouping of segments and use of
integrity. equivalent segments. Location of segments prone to
corrosion in the model should be as close as possible to
ICDA is a structured process designed to assess the the actual pipeline location.
internal integrity of pipelines transporting hydrocarbons.
The following steps are recommended to be considered Fluid and PVT properties
in developing the ICDA process in a Pipeline Integrity It is important to have the correct fluid composition for
Plan; these steps are not limiting and they could change hydrocarbons and water. A complete water analysis will
as operating and environmental conditions change. provide information of substances dissolved in the water
phase especially if it is formation water. Certain ions
1. Evaluation of critical inclination angles along the could precipitate and form films which in turn could
pipeline route where electrolyte substances including partially or totally protect the pipeline wall from corrosion.
water could accumulate. This provides information
where potential corrosion activity could develop. The fluid properties are calculated within the
2. Development of multiphase flow models to simulator or interpolated from tables having the fluid
determine locations of water accumulation. These properties for a range of pressure and temperatures. If
models should include at least velocities of each the PVT information is provided by tables, these values
phase of the transporting fluids, intensity of corrosion should be checked for discontinuities and strange
rates, critical velocities to determine erosional tendencies.
velocities, pH and partial pressure of CO2. As the
operating conditions change and/or the fluid It is also important that the simulation process
characteristics change these models should be complies with three phase flow mass balance options as
updated. well as with water/oil slip.
3. Develop a risk-based internal corrosion susceptibility
profile for the pipeline using the information from the Operating and boundary conditions
above simulation. Risk is defined as a measure of Operating and boundary flow conditions are
the likelihood or frequency of an event occurring in important parameters in determining the fluid behavior
combination with the consequences of that event, during simulations. Pressure, temperature, flow rates,
as: watercut and gas oil ratio are parameters required to
establish the operating and boundary conditions.
Risk = (Probability of Failure) x (Consequences of Failure)
Heat transfer profile
4. Examination of critical sites resulting from high risk To properly simulate the heat transfer process, the
corrosion evaluation using the models above thickness and the thermal properties of the pipeline
mentioned. For most onshore pipelines excavation components should be described as well as how those
and inspection using non-destructive and non- materials are distributed along the pipeline profile. This
invasive examination methods (radiography or will allow regions to be accurately modeled with
ultrasonic) are required to assess corrosion at the insulation, concrete coating, buried or exposed to the
chosen locations. If the critical locations after environment in each pipeline section. The most
inspection indicate that no corrosion damage exists advanced simulators are capable of calculating the heat
then other locations along the pipeline are less likely accumulation in the pipe walls as well as heat
to be corroded. conduction through the walls into the surroundings.
5. Once a site has been exposed installation of
corrosion monitoring devices will allow the operator
SPE 103922 3

Corrosion rate calculation methods Fscale = g (T , PCO 2 )


In multiphase flow systems water and CO2 react and
attack carbon steel pipelines producing corrosion. This Norsok
The Norsok standards are developed by the
environment does not include presence of H2S. The
basic chemical reactions are (2): Norwegian petroleum industry for protection and safety
of offshore and onshore petroleum installations. The
Norsok M 506 is a CO2 corrosion rate calculation model.
CO 2 + H 2 O H 2 CO 3 The corrosion rate is estimated as a function of pH,
This reaction dissociates in two steps temperature, partial pressure of CO2 and wall shear
stress.
H 2 CO3 H + + HCO3 and
CR = f ( pH , T ) g (T ) h(PCO 2 , )
+ 2

HCO 3 H + CO 3 Top of the line corrosion TOLC (4)
The Norwegian Institute of Energy IFE developed the
In a corrosive CO2 environment when the Fe+2 and top of the line corrosion model. This model is limited by
CO32- are above the solubility limit they combine to form the amount of iron that can be dissolved in condensed
a film of iron carbonate which protects partially the pipe water:
wall from corrosion.
CR = a Rcond C fe (b T )
Fe2 + CO3 FeCO3 (solid )

2

Rcond is the water condensation rate calculated by the


multiphase flow simulator and Cfe is a function of partial
Corrosion rates in the pipeline segments are pressure of CO2 and temperature.
calculated using the variables calculated during the
simulation process and applying them to well known C fe = f (T , PCO 2 )
corrosion models used widely in the industry. These
models are De Waard 95 and Norsok for bottom of the
pipe corrosion and IFEs of Norway for top of the line Risk-based corrosion susceptibility profile
corrosion (TOLC) or corrosion caused by water Using the information develop in the multiphase flow
condensation normally located at the 12 oclock position. simulation a risk-based profile will be created. Based on
Both de Waard 95 and Norsok corrosion models are operational and environmental conditions, it is suggested
regarded as conservative methods. to determine the total risk profile based in these three
characteristics:
De Waard 95 (3) Residence time of the water film in the pipeline or
The de Waard 95 model was developed by C de water in contact with the pipe wall. Presence of
Waard et al after intense and numerous experiments in stagnant water film and CO2 will produce corrosion
high pressure close loops. The de Waard 95 corrosion and eventually pitting. The water film residence time
rate CR is calculate by: could be estimated from the water film velocity
values from the simulation. Water film residence
CR = (1 / (1 / Vr + 1 / Vm )) Fscale
time can be high, moderate and low, depending on
the operational conditions and fluid corrosive
properties it is suggest a total of 70% of the total risk
Vr is the maximum corrosion rate estimated for the be attributed to the effect of stagnant water film in
limiting reaction rate as a function of the temperature, the pipeline. This risk value allocation could change
partial pressure of CO2 and pH. depending on information from non-destructive
examination and if available data from internal
Vr = f ((T , pH , Pco 2 ) inspection instruments or smart pigs.
Corrosion rate. The corrosion rate developed by de
Vm is the maximum corrosion rate caused at the Waard 95 method, which is from experience a little
limiting mass transfer rate as a function of partial less conservative than the Norsok method, could be
pressure of CO2, liquid flow velocity and hydraulic used to determine the corrosion rate of each
diameter. segment of the pipeline. It is assumed that a
corrosion allowance is included in sizing the pipeline
system. The probability of failure is proportional to
Vm = C Pco 2 U L0.8 DH0.2 the corrosion of maximum allowance. This is a
measurement of the corrosion intensity. Risk from
Fscale is the scale protection factor as a function of the corrosion rate intensity could amount to 25% of
temperature and partial pressure of CO2 the total risk.
4 SPE 103922

Erosional Velocity. Erosional velocity could cause The produced water is estimated to contain 2% molar
erosion in some pipeline segments and these areas concentration of bicarbonates and an ionic strength of
are more susceptible to corrosion. Risk from the 1.1 mol/l.
erosional velocity could be the remaining 5% of the
total risk. Source
The source located at the beginning of the pipeline
Study Case - ICDA system will inject either 540 or 200 MMscfd at the inlet
The study case is for a multiphase pipeline system point. The source temperature will be 86 oF and the
located in Mexico. This multiphase flow pipeline system watercut will be 0.1.
is in the design phase. The system comprises a pipeline
65.7 Km in length and 36 inch nominal diameter. The Study Case - Simulation results
pipeline is located onshore and it is generally buried to a Two scenarios were simulated for this study case.
depth of 1 m. The ICDA process for the study case The first scenario or Case 1 is for the average expected
includes two phases. The first phase is the development production of 540 MMscfd and the second scenario or
of a multiphase transient analysis for two flow scenarios Case 2 is for a low production rate of 200 MMscfd.
540 and 200 MMscfd. The second phase is the
development of a risk-based corrosion susceptibility
profile using the simulations results. Case 1 - Production flow rate 540 MMscfd
The first case considers an inlet gas volume of 540
Study Case - Multiphase flow Model MMscfd and a water production volume of 43 STBD per
Case study parameters were input into the OLGA v5 operating information. Upon start-up the pipeline starts
multiphase flow simulator. The main components of this from steady state conditions and stabilizes after 30
model were: hours. The simulation was conducted for 120 hours at
which time the system is completely in stable conditions.
Pipeline Profile
The pipeline profile was downloaded from an Auto Figure 2 depicts the elevation, pressure and
Cad file. The profile is indicated in Figure 1 and consists temperature profiles. These profiles provide the
of 785 segments. pressure and temperature values at 120 hours of the
simulation.
Fluid Properties
Fluid composition and properties were modeled using Figure 3 indicates the partial pressure of CO2, pH
the PVTsim package and the fluid properties were and the shear stress between the water film and the pipe
downloaded into a table in a text file .tab type. The SRK wall after 120 hours of simulation. These parameters
equations of state with the Peneloux correction were and liquid velocities are used by the corrosion models to
used to generate the fluid properties. determine the corrosion rate at each section.

Operating and boundary conditions Figure 4 depicts the water cut or water film in contact
The operating and boundary conditions for the case with the pipe wall. This curve is taken at 120 hours into
study are included in Table 1. the simulation. It is important to mention that the water
film start forming at Km post 34. Prior to that location
Heat transfer water has been dispersed into the gas phase.
The pipeline materials and soil thermal properties are
indicated in Table 2. These materials form a layer Figure 5 indicates the corrosion rate calculated by the
around the pipe as indicated in Table 3. These elements de Waard 95 method, the water film velocity and the
along with the ambient temperature of 71.6 oF are the erosional velocity ratio. All these parameters are the
environment in which the heat transfer process occurs main components in determining the risk-based
along the pipeline system. corrosion susceptibility profile. Part of this profile is
included in Table 4.
Water options
The simulation will be modeled including water slip
and water flash options. The slip option considers the Case 2 Production flow rate 200 MMscfd
velocity difference between oil and free water. The Case 2 considers a much lower gas inlet gas volume.
water flash option specifies the mass transfer between The gas inlet volume is 2000 MMscfd and a water
free water and gas phase. production volume of 16 STBD. The system starts from
steady state conditions and stabilizes after 50 hours in
Corrosion models relation to pressure and temperature. At the 200
The corrosion module was set to calculate corrosion MMscfd production level the system experiences
rates using the Norsok and de Waard 95 models for the formation of many slugs and the liquid delivery volume at
bottom pipeline corrosion and for the top of the line the outlet swings constantly as indicated in Figure 6.
corrosion rate using the IFE model. (2) (3)
SPE 103922 5

Figure 7 depicts the elevation, pressure and Conclusions


temperature profiles. These profiles provide the Understanding of corrosion susceptibility along a
pressure and temperature values at 120 hours of the pipeline system will allow safe design of pipelines.
simulation. An accurate understanding of corrosion
susceptibility will provide an important tool in
Figure 8 indicates curves for the partial pressure of designing a corrosion mitigation plan.
CO2, pH and the shear stress between the water film Operating conditions such as flow rates, delivery
and the pipe wall after 120 hours of simulation. These pressures and water production significantly alter the
parameters along with the liquid velocities are used by corrosion susceptibility profile. Therefore,
the corrosion models to determine the corrosion rate at depending on operational factors the corrosion
each section. mitigation plan will need to change.
Production water has been in contact with the
Figure 9 depicts the water cut or water film in contact reservoir rock for long periods of time (centuries)
with the pipe wall. This curve is taken at 120 hours into and dissolved electrolytes are important in
the simulation. This is an important parameter that determining the corrosion rates and susceptibility of
shows where the water film is in contact with the pipe pipeline systems. Therefore, water analyses are
wall. The water film is in contact with the wall from the important for determining corrosion rates.
beginning of the pipeline and in some section in the first Corrosion occurs in places where an electrolyte is in
7 Km of the pipeline there is no contact of water with the contact with the pipe wall. Understanding where wet
pipe wall because of dispersion of water in the gas areas occur and water residence time are among
phase and flow conditions due to the inclination angle of the most important parameters in determining
the pipeline. corrosion susceptibility risk along pipeline systems.
Multiphase flow models are unique tools which can
Figure 10 indicates the corrosion rate calculated by provide most of the information necessary to
the de Waard 95 method, the water film velocity and the develop risk-based corrosion susceptibility profiles.
erosional velocity ratio. All these parameters are main
components in determining the risk-based corrosion Reference:
susceptibility profile. Part of this profile is included in 1. Perich, W. et al.: Integrated data approach to
Table 5. Pipeline Integrity Management. Pipeline & Gas
Journal (October, 2003)
2. Norsveen, M. et al.: Implementation of CO2
Study Case - Risk-based corrosion susceptibility corrosion models in OLGA three phase flow
profile code. NACE Paper No. 00048 (Corrosion 2000)
3. De Waard, C. et al.: Influence in liquid flow
A risk-based corrosion susceptibility profile for both velocity on CO2 corrosion: a semi-empirical
scenarios Case 1 and Case 2 were developed following model. (1995).
the procedures indicated in the Risk-based corrosion 4. Singer, M. et al.: Top of the line corrosion in
susceptibility profile part of this paper. presence of acetic acid and carbon dioxide.
NACE Paper No 04377 (Corrosion 2004).
For each case there are 785 segments. Inclusion of
all this segments in the paper will be to long, therefore
only a part of these profiles are included for illustrative
purposes. A section from Km post 63 to the end of the
line is included for discussion. In the risk tables, low and
high limit values determines the ranges for which the
corrosion risk is consider low, medium or high. Values
less than the low limit are considered of low risk (green
cells), values between low and high limit are considered
medium risk (yellow cells) and values above the high
limit are considered high risk.

Table 4 includes the risk-based corrosion


susceptibility profile for the Case 1 segments. Table 5
includes the segments for the Case 2. Table 6 is a
summary and includes the total risk values for both
cases.
6 SPE 103922

Tables

Operating and Boundary Conditions

Temper
Label Type Abs. Pos. Pressure GMF
ature

INLET CLOSED

995.4
OUTLET PRESSURE 77 F 1
PSIG

SOURCE-
41.667 M 80 F
1

Table 1 Operating and Boundary Conditions


Case 1 - 540 MMscfd - SPE-103922-PP
70% 25% 5% 100%
CORR
ULW 3
Material T [MM/Y EVR [-]
[M/S] ] (PIPELI
Risk Risk
(PIPE (PIPE NE)
Label Density Conductivity Heat Capacity LENG
LINE)
for
LINE)
for
"EROS
Risk Total
TH Reside Corro for Outcome
"WAT "Corro IONAL
STEEL 7850 KG/M3 0.5E+02 0.5E+03 [KM] nce sion EVR Risk
ER sion VELOC
Time rate
FILM rate, ITY
SOIL 2100 KG/M3 1.25 W/M-K 910 J/KG-C VELO DE RATIO"
CITY" WAAR
D 95"
Coating 3 ply 950 KG/M3 0.35 W/M-K 2200 J/KG-C 63.00 0.93 0.02 3.11 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.8%
63.08 1.01 0.02 3.11 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.8%
Table 2 Material Properties 63.17 1.02 0.02 3.11 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.8%
63.25 1.02 0.02 3.11 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.8%
63.33 1.02 0.02 3.11 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.8%
63.42 1.02 0.02 3.05 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.6%
63.50 1.02 0.02 3.00 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.4%
63.58 0.86 0.02 2.99 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.4%
63.67 0.86 0.02 2.99 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.4%
63.75 0.86 0.02 2.99 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.4%
Wall 63.83 0.86 0.02 2.99 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.4%
63.92 0.86 0.02 3.00 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.4%
Label Material Wall thickness 64.00 0.86 0.02 3.01 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.4%
64.08 0.88 0.02 3.00 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.4%
64.17 0.88 0.02 3.00 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.4%
WALL-1 STEEL 0.79 IN 64.25 0.88 0.02 3.00 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.4%
64.33 0.88 0.02 3.00 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.4%
Coating 3 ply 0.06 IN 64.42 0.88 0.02 3.04 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.5%
64.50 0.88 0.02 3.06 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.7%
SOIL 1 IN 64.58 0.96 0.02 3.06 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.7%
64.67 0.97 0.02 3.06 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.6%
SOIL 2 IN 64.75 0.97 0.02 3.06 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.6%
64.83 0.97 0.02 3.06 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.6%
64.92 0.97 0.02 3.04 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.6%
SOIL 4 IN 65.00 0.97 0.02 3.02 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.5%
65.09 0.91 0.02 3.02 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.5%
SOIL 8 IN 65.17 0.91 0.02 3.02 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.5%
65.26 0.91 0.02 3.02 0.12 0.25 0.01 15.5%
SOIL 16 IN 65.34 0.91 0.02 2.87 0.11 0.25 0.01 14.9%
65.42 0.91 0.02 1.45 0.06 0.25 0.01 9.3%
65.50 0.63 0.02 2.01 0.08 0.25 0.01 11.5%
SOIL 9 IN
65.58 -0.23 0.02 0.25 0.01 -0.37 0.02 5.2%
Table 3 Pipeline Wall Description Low
0.541 0.441 0.075 0.025 25.0%
limit
High
0.885 0.665 0.175 0.045 70.0%
limit
Table 4 Case 1 540 MMscfd -Risk-based
Corrosion Susceptibility Profile
SPE 103922 7

Summary Case 1 and Case 2


SPE-103922-PP
Case 2 - 200 MMscfd - SPE-103922-PP Total Risk Total Risk
70% 25% 5% 100% Case 1 Case 2
EVR LENGTH [KM] 540 MMscfd 200 MMscfd
[-] 63.000 15.72% 32.49%
CORR
(PIP 63.083 15.83% 34.51%
3
ULWT ELIN 63.167 15.83% 13.51%
[MM/Y]
[M/S] Risk E) 63.250 15.83% 13.52%
(PIPEL Risk
(PIPELI for "ER Total 63.333 15.83% 13.52%
INE) for Risk
LENGT NE) Resi OSI Outco
"Corro Corr for 63.417 15.83% 13.52%
H [KM] "WATE denc ONA me
sion osion EVR 63.500 15.60% 6.89%
R FILM e L Risk
rate, rate 63.583 15.38% 3.35%
VELOCI Time VEL
DE 63.667 15.37% 24.35%
TY" OCIT
WAAR 63.750 15.37% 24.35%
Y
D 95" 63.833 15.37% 24.35%
RATI
O" 63.917 15.36% 24.35%
63.00 -0.01 0.23 2.72 0.11 0.09 0.00 34.5% 64.000 15.39% 24.33%
63.08 0.66 0.02 2.72 0.11 0.09 0.00 13.5% 64.084 15.42% 24.31%
64.167 15.42% 24.31%
63.17 0.66 0.02 2.72 0.11 0.09 0.00 13.5%
64.250 15.42% 24.31%
63.25 0.66 0.02 2.72 0.11 0.09 0.00 13.5% 64.334 15.41% 24.31%
63.33 0.66 0.02 2.72 0.11 0.09 0.00 13.5% 64.417 15.41% 24.31%
63.42 0.66 0.02 1.04 0.04 0.09 0.00 6.9% 64.500 15.54% 31.01%
63.50 0.66 0.02 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.00 3.4% 64.583 15.65% 33.19%
64.666 15.65% 12.19%
63.58 -0.02 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.00 24.4%
64.749 15.65% 12.19%
63.67 -0.02 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.00 24.4% 64.833 15.65% 12.19%
63.75 -0.02 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.00 24.4% 64.916 15.65% 12.19%
63.83 -0.02 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.00 24.4% 65.000 15.56% 5.99%
63.92 -0.02 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.00 24.3% 65.085 15.48% 3.23%
64.00 -0.02 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.00 24.3% 65.170 15.48% 24.23%
65.255 15.47% 24.23%
64.08 -0.02 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.00 24.3%
65.339 15.47% 24.23%
64.17 -0.02 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.00 24.3% 65.421 14.90% 24.23%
64.25 -0.02 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.00 24.3% 65.500 9.29% 24.06%
64.33 -0.02 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.00 24.3% 65.576 11.51% 23.80%
64.42 -0.02 0.23 1.82 0.07 0.10 0.00 31.0% 65.650 5.16% 70.36%
64.50 -0.02 0.23 2.39 0.09 0.09 0.00 33.2% Table 6 Summary of Case 1 and 2 Risk-based
64.58 0.44 0.02 2.39 0.09 0.09 0.00 12.2%
Corrosion Susceptibility Profile.
64.67 0.44 0.02 2.39 0.09 0.09 0.00 12.2%
64.75 0.44 0.02 2.39 0.09 0.09 0.00 12.2%
64.83 0.44 0.02 2.39 0.09 0.09 0.00 12.2%
64.92 0.44 0.02 0.81 0.03 0.09 0.00 6.0%
65.00 0.44 0.02 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.00 3.2%
65.09 -0.01 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.00 24.2%
65.17 -0.01 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.00 24.2%
65.26 -0.01 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.00 24.2%
65.34 -0.01 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.00 24.2%
65.42 -0.01 0.23 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.00 24.1%
65.50 -0.01 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 23.8%
65.58 0.00 0.70 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.4%

Low
0.54 0.44 0.08 0.03 25.0%
limit
High
0.89 0.67 0.18 0.05 70.0%
limit
Table 5 - Case 2 200 MMscfd -Risk-based
Corrosion Susceptibility Profile
8 SPE 103922

Figures

Figure 4 Case 1 540 MMscfd Water Film Near


the Wall

Figure 5 Case 1 540 MMscfd Corrosion Rate De


Waard 95, Water Film Velocity and Erosional
Velocity Ratio

Figure 2 Case 1 - 540 MMscfd Elevation, Pressure


and Temperature Profile

Figure 6 - Case 2 200 MMscfd Total Liquid


Volume Flow at Outlet

Figure 3 Case 1 540 MMscfd Partial Pressure of


CO2, pH and Water film-Wall Shear Stress

Figure 7 Case 2 200 MMscfd Elevation,


Pressure and Temperature Profile
SPE 103922 9

Figure 8 Case 2 200 MMscfd Partial Pressure of


CO2, pH and Water Film-Wall Shear Stress

Figure 9 Case 2 200 MMscfd Water Film near


the Wall

Figure 10 Case 2 200 MMscfd - Corrosion Rate


De Waard 95, Water Film Velocity and Erosional
Velocity Ratio