You are on page 1of 12

CORROSION: TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC DRIVER FOR INDONESIA OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

1. Aswin Tino (MottMac Abu Dhabi, aswin.tino@mottmac.com)* 2. Dr. Ir. Slameto Wiryolukito (Material Science and Engineering Research Group ITB,, slameto@material.itb.ac.id)** 3. Muhammad Abduh (PT. Rekayasa Solverindo, abduh@reksolindo.co.id)***

I. Introduction Major reasons to concern about corrosion are: safety and economic. Several modes of corrosion can be detrimental and can lead to catastrophic accident to people safety and environment conservation. Several researches in United States and Europe highlighted corrosion as biggest internal damage contributor to engineering structures. A significant economy impact of corrosion and corrosion control also reported. Indonesia Oil and Gas Industry have already invested lot of money in development of facilities upstream and downstream that including offshore/onshore production platforms, refining facilities, and petroleum distribution networks. This paper will present a overview of the activity in corrosion control in global oil and gas industry and searching for the driver for implementation of more effective and economic corrosion control strategy in Indonesia. Corrosion is a natural tendency of materials to return to their most thermodynamically stable state. This process is usually deteriorative to materials. Corrosion control to prevent this deterioration is by three general ways: control the environment, design the materials, and design a barrier between the material and its environment. A typical approach for corrosion control program applicable for oil and gas industry can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Typical Corrosion Control Program

II. Corrosionomic Corrosion itself and efforts in fighting destruction effect of corrosion to materials has significant implication in economic and business process (corrosionomic). Method for estimating the corrosion impact to national economy was proposed by: - Uhlig Method that more emphasize in production aspects; - Hoar Method that more emphasize in sectoral contribution; - In/Out Method that also estimate indirect cost of corrosion;
1//11

. 2002 3 Survey of Corrosion Cost in Japan. Committee on Cost of Corrosion in Japan. Payer. G. H G. Cathodic protection program which has significant impact on protection system and complimentary to protective coating contribute only 4% of the total corrosion cost. P. sealants. one of the methods used by CC Technologies divided corrosion cost into two categories: . Slight different magnitude also contributes by corrosion inhibitor application and development of non-metal materials (e. Battelle Memorial Institute 2 Koch M. Corrosion Cost Distribution in US and Japan Battelle found that most expenditure in US is due to extensive development and application of corrosion resistant alloy (CRA) materials (56%) and protective coating (30%). P. Holbrook. Economic Effects of Metallic Corrosion in the United States. Tokyo. fiber reinforced plastic). Corrosion Cost and Preventive Strategies in the United States.Direct Cost that made up of: Cost of Design.org/pr/12corrode. http://www. Brongers N.. D. inhibitor. H. Cost of Management: inspection. coating.html . repair.. cathodic protection.The economy of corrosion in was studied by Battelle (1995) 1 and CC Technologies (2002) 2 in United States and in Japan by Society of Corrosion Engineering and Japan Association of Corrosion Control (1997) 3 . rehabilitation. 1-1-1996. In/Out method. including labor cost and equipment. Figure 2. H. Thompson Y. 1997 1 2//11 .g plastic pipe.. Indirect cost in high oil and gas economic like United States country definitely must be higher than Japan.battelle. Corrosion cost distribution of both countries differs significantly and remarkably can be effected by the estimating the indirect cost. and loss of productive maintenance. Figure 2. Virmani J. Manufacturing and Construction: materials selection.

Both studies agree that effective corrosion control can save up to 40% of total corrosion cost. and taxes of the overhead corrosion cost.bps. Cost saving through better corrosion control programs equals to USD 1. transportation.8%). failures. Corrosion Control Cost Distribution and Measurement of Effectivity If we can conservatively make a simple assumption. and exploration to production (5. litigation. Figure 3.6%).5 billion. Oil and gas sector contributed 18% to total US national corrosion cost. Effectivity of corrosion control program is determined by how much of indirect cost can be saved. energy. Cost of Corrosion in United States Oil and Gas Sector (CC Technologies. This figure if we extrapolated to Indonesia GDP in 2006 4 equals to USD 3.74 billion. The study also has conservatively estimated that total corrosion cost doubled by indirect cost. Table 1. followed by refining activities (14. the study showed that the activity for transporting and storage of gas and liquid contributing the highest corrosion cost (79. 4 www. Detailed for this sector. corrosion cost (direct and indirect) in Indonesia oil and gas sector estimated to reach 1. manufacturing.go.g. oil and gas. infrastructure) compared with United States. that oil and gas economic characteristic relatively similar.- Indirect Cost includes loss productivity because of outages.12% of Indonesia Gross Domestic Product (GDP).6%). Figure 3. Table 1a.id 3//11 . corrosion control and management in Indonesia perform as well as in US and both technical and legislative regulation as strict as in United States. delays. 2002) Different corrosion cost distribution in Japan can be explained further in economic aspects of respective industries (e.

2007 5 4//11 . A. cyclic). a large amount of money can be saved firstly by shifting paradigm of “corrosion as maintenance issue” to new paradigm “corrosion control as integrated company plan”. Figure 4. New York. Fundamentals of Metallic Corrosion Atmospheric and Media Corrosion of Metals. Corrosion Engineering.0002.. and Burstein. R Pierre. T. 1994. etc. Groningen. Table 2. Summarized Corrosion Mode 7. If so this issue should be able to raise the level of concern and awareness amongst the stakeholder (material producers. EPC companies. 8 . Detrimental effects can occur when corrosion accompanied synergistically by mechanical load (static. G.). 1971 8 Roberge. Corrosion can attack almost all engineering structures equipments and systems: fixed/floating offshore structure. Corrosion Mode Knowledge basis for corrosion phenomenon is a thermochemical process. III. vessel. pp. and intergranular corrosion as these types of corrosion is the most cause of failure in gas pipeline and process industry 5. J. Other special form of corrosion that associated with specific hydrocarbon and refining industries are: carburation and metal dusting. More concern should be given due to stress corrosion cracking. 8:52–8:83 6 Gas Pipeline Incidents – 6th EGIG Report 1970-2004 Document Number EGIG 05.. There are eight basic form of corrosion common in petroleum production and process industry.6 .. Table 2.R. 9 Congleton. Phillip A. Stress Corrosion Cracking of Stainless Steels. (eds. Jarman. L. Butterworths Heinemann. L. Oxford. and policy maker). W. R. storage tank. Fundamentals and Concepts of Corrosion and Electrochemical Corrosion Protection. 1999 9 Schweitzer. pitting. UK. As we can learn from the fact above. Houston . Sound Parkway Florida. in Shreir.Significant impact of corrosion to the economy could be happened for Indonesia oil and gas industry. Understanding corrosion mechanisms will be much helpful to develop corrosion control practice. operator. piping system. Handbook of Corrosion and Cathodic Protection. European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group. Corrosion Control. 2005 7 Schwenk. boiler.

maintainability. and recommended practice in oil and gas industry.Operating temperature and pressure .Corrosion in oil and gas production in many references simply categorized as sour corrosion in H2S service and sweet corrosion in CO2 service. and . and cost. fabrication. Corrosion Resistance Materials Selection Beside general requirement in mechanical basis. . Stress corrosion cracking become special concern in sour gas pipeline due to its potential for pipeline failure. . Several selection guideline and verification tools considerable for material procurement are as follow: Guideline for materials selection for corrosion protection: API 5L (general material requirement for oil and gas production) NACE MR 0175 (carbon and low alloy selection) EFC Document Number 16 (carbon and low alloy for H2S service) EFC Document Number 23 (carbon and low alloy for CO2 service) Norsok M-001 (corrosion materials for offshore and onshore) ISO 15156 Series (corrosion materials for H2S service) DNV RP F-112 Draft Version April 2006(duplex stainless steel design for subsea application) DNV OS B-101 (corrosion resistant metal for offshore application) Corrosion testing of material NACE TM-0177 or EFC Document Number 17 (SCC laboratory test) NACE TM-0284 (HIC laboratory test method) ASTM G-150:99R04 and ASTM G-0048:03 (critical pitting temperature test method) AWS A4. IV. Output of material selection program is appropriate materials for specific service condition as well as assurance for fabrication and maintainability. design of materials for corrosion protection should evaluate corrosivity variables as follow but not limited to: .2-91 or ISO 8249 (ferrite number of duplex stainless steel conversion from magnetic measurement) - 5//11 .CO2 content. reference.Organic Acid and Halide For many provided guidelines.Oxygen or oxidizing agents content. care should be taken for specific condition of operation variables.Erosion.H2S content. environment. and type of equipment and the possibility to introduce specific corrosion mechanism. .

acrylics. November.066.ER. . .Key factors that affect performance: Inhibitor efficiency or reduction in corrosion rates. transport line).Surface Preparation Standard. Turgoose. E. M. 1971 11 EFC Publication Number 39. Paper No. A rotating cylinder electrode study of cathodic kinetics and corrosion rates in CO2 corrosion. Coatings for Corrosion Protection. gas production. . Houston. 124. inorganic (enamels. alkyd. NACE International. and organic coatings (epoxies. complementary to corrosion resistance material and coating.13 .Mechanical resistance and adhesion. Optimum concentration Film stability (flow conditions.Chemical stability. ESR. Handbook of Cathodic Corrosion Protection. Inhibition mechanism once provided by inhibitor molecule that develops a barrier between the corrosive water phase and the metal surface 11 . aluminum). . Corrosion Inhibitor Inhibition is alternative corrosion control in oil and gas production. Paisley. Dosage of inhibitor mainly based on the corrosivity of the environment (oil well.Painting System and Coating System Standards Guide and Specification. Schwenk. Corrosion protective performance of coating can be evaluated from the following 10 : . J. polyurethanes). 12 3. The efficiency of corrosion inhibitor shows a significant effect for lowering corrosion rate 12.(a) (b) Figure 4 Stainless Steel Failure by Corrosion in Process Industry. Corrosion '95. 1997. chromium. Solubility and oil/water partitioning behavior. Mendoza-Flores and S. Protective Coating Coating is primary corrosion protection method for metals. Exact inhibition mechanism is still in hypothesis until now. European Federation of Corrosion (EFC) recommended a guideline for the application of corrosion inhibitor as follow: . BP Sunbury Report. ceramic. Heim. 13 J. 3b.Qualification Procedures and Quality System VI.Permeability for corrosive agents. G. The Use of Corrosion Inhibitors in Oil and Gas Production. glass reinforced lining). temperature). W.Electrochemical stability. Steel Structures Painting Council (SSPC) as authorized organization in coating technology provides a series in coating guidelines consist of: .96. . Corrosion Prediction Modelling. Coating for corrosion protection can be broadly divided into: metallic (zinc. McMahon and D.Gas Pipeline Corrosion Failure (EGIG) V. 10 6//11 . A. Most of the inhibitors currently used in producing wells are organic nitrogenous compounds. glasses.

Houston 19 A. . material and microstructures. D Murphy W and Amon C. D. 20 . dissolved oxygen. Having similar oceanographic characteristic.ac. and environment as described in Table 3. “Current Drain to Cathodically Protected Stainless Steels in Seawater” 15 14 7//11 .Economic (cost. seals. The increase use of materials with less proven record in seawater cathodic protection environment has raised the profile of this degradation mechanism in recent years.g elastomers. and circlip fastener 16 . www. toxicity. October 1988. Indonesian CP designer can share Gulf of Mexico offshore project experience which has reached 900 meter water depth 15 . Electrochemistry theory first significant application for cathodic protection was by Sir Humphrey Davy in 1761 for copper wooden ships 14 .. cathodic potential parameter (protection potentials and the choose of anodes) 17. Figure 5. Downstream processing of produced fluids All materials in the injection and production systems (e. 16 Fairhurst. Cathodic Protection Technology behind cathodic protection (CP) is based on simple principle as to minimize anodic dissolution by application cathodic current. W. Subsea component that have suffered this failures are: flowlines. Hydrogen Embrittlement Stress Corrosion Cracking of Superduplex Stainless Steel. referred as hydrogen induced stress cracking (HISC).Pourbaix Supermartensitic Steels ’99.uk/corrosion/jcse. temperature. Hydrogen Embrittlement Hydrogen embrittlement relatively is not a new phenomenon.Environmental Issues (biodegradability. UK Corrosion 98 17 Festy D. hydrostatic pressure. Houston. Paper 01018 Corrosion 2001. Available guidelines from NACE and DNV are applicable and approved for shallow water (<300 meters). Susceptibility of HISC in several references associated with the effect of residual stress. 19 .Compatibility of the corrosion inhibitor with: The production fluids. manifold hub connector. shape of the structures to be protected. 1971 Fairhurst. Another difficulty of cathodic protection for subsea equipments and systems is due to the complexity of subsea component systems. instrumentation fitting. Design of cathodic protection demands accurate information of the nature of the corrosive medium. NACE Corrosion Paper No 01011 2001 18 Woolin P and Murphy W. Other chemicals. Kuhn for oil and gas pipeline in New Orleans in 1928. Handbook of Cathodic Corrosion Protection.umist. The first cathodic protection standard was drawn in DIN 30676 in 1984. Journal of Corrosion Science and Engineering. and presence of calcareous deposits) changes significantly in this depth. S99-33 Page 283 “Cathodic Protection of Supermartensitic 13 Cr Stainless Steels Without Hydrogen Damage” 20 12 R. The Failure of Minor Components with Disappropriate Consequences. What We Have Learnt.Lye. The History of Corrosion Protection. The loss of ductility due to diffusion of evolved hydrogen from cathodic polarization lead to cracking when component experience load stress and or residual stress. bioaccumulation) . The first cathodic protection was applied by Robert J. Cathodic Protection of Steel in Deep Sea: Hydrogen Embrittlement Risk and Cathodic Protection. Offshore Cathodic Protection. 18 . UK 2004. Deepwater Challenge Development of offshore cathodic protection requires more detailed guidelines for deepwater platform because of CP design parameter (seawater salinity. liners).V Baeckman. Materials Performance P 24. availability of products) VII.

Evaluation Purpose: Materials under service conditions. E.g. as recommended in DNV RP F-112 21 . and grain flow. transformer. online assessment). Therefore more detailed microstructure assessment should incorporate for more accurate and valid results. Therefore cathodic protection system should be review: e. Summarized Cathodic Protection Designs and Guidelines Maintenance of cathodic protection system is important to maintain the protective performance of the system to protected structures. Resistance to HISC decreases in coarse aligned ferrite-austenite microstructure and or with the presence of third phases (nitrides. Obtaining CP potential along the protected structures can be difficult in offshore pipelines.g Pipe-to-soil Potential measurement. integrated. . Any coating faults can make “overload” protection current. platform). Simple control point for review and maintenance of cathodic protection system are as follow: . which requires diver-man or remote operated vehicle and wired or wireless potential measurement device. Corrosion Monitoring and Inspection The main purposes of corrosion monitoring and inspection are .Monitoring of primary protective coating of the protected structures (pipelines. cable connection) . in superduplex stainless 25Cr).Monitoring of electrical system that include: electrical instruments (power supply. . rectifier.Information Basis: DNV RP F-112. Safe cathodic protection design for high susceptibility of hydrogen embrittlement in sea water can be achieved by electrical solution by the use of diode as a potential buffer and by selecting alternative lower voltage of sacrificial anode.g raise the coating breakdown factor . austenite spacing.Monitoring protected structure potential. Cathodic Protection Maintenance Table 3. VIII. Draft Issue April 2006 21 8//11 . Control of the production process (periodic.Microstructural features of stainless steel that shall be controlled are: ferrite content. alpha prime e. Design Of Duplex Stainless Steel Subsea Equipment Exposed to Cathodic Protection.

Data combining (fluid corrosivity. Corrosion monitoring for many years utilized for upstream and downstream oil and gas industry involving quite varying technology. Aboveground Inspection Techniques 9//11 . from simple chemical coupon to sophisticated automatic inline inspection tools. Offshore Cathodic Protection Challenge Table 4. corrosion rate. Figure 5.a. coating fault.b. remaining strength assessment). metal loss sizing) from these corrosion monitoring activity can be utilized further to assess the overall integrity of engineering structures against corrosion attack. Life assessment (corrosion defect assessment. Corrosion Monitoring Techniques Table 4. Table 4.Material Selection.

Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment by NACE RP 0204: 2004 . Narasi Sridhar. 2004 23 Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment of Gas Transmission And Storage Lines. Mechanical Failure by Thacker. Methodology for corrosion assessment can be divided into two categories: . and on-site mechanical testing. CIPS. NDT inspection.Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment for Dry Gas will be NACE RP 0104:2005 . the use of pipeline elevation profile map) Corroded Pipeline Rehabilitation Cathodic Protection.Data evaluation and detailed inspection. More recent direct assessment methodology from NACE and GTI are basically consists of data evaluation (historical data. UK. Wigan. SSCDA) are typical four step process consists of: pre-assessment. Corrosion direct assessment methodologies and protocol published by NACE are: . alternative validation must be considered as follow: . Ben Thacker.2004 24 SSCDA Prediction Model for Cathodically Protected Onshore Gas Transmission Pipeline with Coal Tar Enamel Coating. . Amit Kale.IX. Dr J M Leeds Pipeline Integrity Management Ltd.NACE Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment should incorporate alternative probabilistic analysis (e.External Corrosion Direct Assessment by NACE RP 0502:2002 . Swan Lane. Coatings. direct examination) Direct assessment becomes important choice for pipeline integrity management when inline inspection meets geometry restrictions or pressure testing become very expensive. 24 .Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment for Wet Gas by NACE Direct assessment (ECDA. direct examination. Effectiveness of these direct assessments in some references relatively varying 22 . Jamalee Ahmad. Southwest Research Institute reported that 85% anomalies inspected by inline inspection successfully predicted by dry gas ICDA. Corrosion Assessment Output of corrosion assessment is a run-repair-replace decision. and Chris Waldhart. Simplified ECDA workflow can be seen in Figure 6. detailed inspection data) and inspection (indirect inspection. visual examination. 23 . and the NACE External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) RP 0502-2002. and Dr. . Most agree that for more accurate result. Corbett House.g.g. Mustaffa. First Order Reliability Method by Ahmamed and Melchers) to reduce bias from data uncertainty (e. and post-assessment.NACE External Corrosion Direct Assessment should consider other inspection tools complimentary to tools in selection matrix (analog DCVG. Petronas Group Technology Solution.Data evaluation – Information can be provided by inline inspection. ICDA. Khairul Ismail. Musfizree. Melor Murni Mohamed Mustakim. Risk Indexing System by Muhlbauer. Soil Resistivity) . WN2 4EY. indirect inspection.Southwest Research Institute for Research and Special Programs Administration Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS). Hindley Green. Journal of Corrosion Science and Engineering. 2nd NDT & Corrosion Management Asia Conference 2006 Singapore. 22 10//11 .

26 are: . W. For corroded pipeline under safety criterion sleeve-weld repair become the choice. Rekayasa Solverindo John. methodologies and technologies that cover broad scope ranging from material management. Conclusion Corrosion cost to the national economy gives a significant number.Clock Spring Method. protective coating and inhibition. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Pipeline Monitoring & Rehabilitation Seminar. Integrated plan of corrosion control in Indonesia can chase the global opportunity in corrosion control. Acknowledgement The Authors would like to extend their most sincere gratitude to all sources for open-for-public technical papers to develop this paper. and corrosion assessment. 25 11//11 . "Field Recoating Using the 3 Layer System". X. Paul. . 1 995. cathodic protection. Besides standardized method in above guidelines considerable alternative technique for for pipeline rehabilitations 25.. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Pipeline Monitoring & Rehabilitation Seminar. Robin. adhesive.. inter-layer filler material. About the Authors * Corrosion Engineer at Mottmac Abu Dhabi Uni Arab Emirate ** Senior Lecturer at Material Engineering and Mechanical Engineering ITB *** Material Engineering Consultant to PT. February 6-9. Pipeline operator prefer conservatively replace pipeline segment if the malfunction is a leak or stress concentration.Requirement for pipeline rehabilitation program has already governed in several design guidelines (ASME B31. February 6-9. and additional coating. corrosion monitoring and inspection. "Composite Sleeves for Pipeline Integrity: Part II".8 for gas transmission pipeline and ASME B31. API 1107). Higher level of effectivity and efficiency of corrosion control can only be achieved if corrosion placed as integrated plan of the company more than just maintenance issue..4 for liquid pipelines. A non-welded sleeve in a form composite coil consists of glass fiber wrap. Indonesia oil and gas industry can save up to USD 1.5 Billion through better managed corrosion control. 1 995 26 Kelty.Field coating removal by Borehole Reconditioning System (BRS) is a high power water blast plus air abrasive blast to remove old coating.

Simplified NACE External Corrosion Direct Assessment with supporting guidance by GTI PIM ECDA Protocol (shaded). 12//11 .Figure 6.