Proceedings of the ASME 2017 India Oil and Gas Pipeline Conference
IOGPC2017
Offshore Oil and Gas Pipeline – Flow Assurance and Corrosion Modelling for
Inspection Prioritization
Lewis Barton
ROSEN Group
Newcastle, UK
Ashwin Pinto
ROSEN Group
Newcastle, UK
ABSTRACT
Flow modelling and corrosion risk assessment are used to
study a challenging multiphase pipeline, where the main focus
is the identification and prioritization of critical locations for
direct inspection (DA). Through the internal corrosion direct
assessment (ICDA), flow modelling sensitivity studies is carried
out to identify critical locations with risks of high shear stresses
and water holdup. Through corrosion risk assessment (CRA),
the critical locations were narrowed down to four primary
locations, which through direct inspection could provide the
information necessary to estimate the overall pipeline condition.
It is highlighted that without the In-line inspection (ILI) data,
selection of inspection locations becomes problematic.
However, carrying out a CRA in combination with dynamic
flow modelling can build a more representative analysis and
assist with effective engineering decision making.
One of the available industry standard tools that can assist
with demonstration of pipelines’ integrity requirement is an
approach that integrates flow assurance with corrosion
modelling known as Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment
(ICDA). More specifically, an industry standard multiphase
dynamic flow model (OLGA) with well-established corrosion
models, CRA and engineering judgement have been employed
to identify and prioritize inspection locations.
A benefit of this work is the validation of predictions by
both OLGA and the corrosion engineer in close adoption to the
procedures of the NACE ICDA standard practice.
Considerations from corrosion engineering aspect on modelling
requirements and corrosion diagnosis will be presented, where
the primary focus is on identification of hot spots and
1 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
April 20-22, 2017, Mumbai, India
IOGPC2017-2448
Ian Laing
ROSEN Group
Newcastle, UK
Ramesh Ladwa
ROSEN Group
Stans, CH
consequent inspection requirements in order to limit excavation
activities and provide cost-effective solutions to the client.
INTRODUCTION
It is now well-established that corrosion contributes to the
overall cost of operation of any industrial assets. For instance, it
is estimated that the direct annual cost of corrosion in the USA
is approximately 276 billion USD [1]. Corrosion remains a
dominant causal factor that compromises reliability and safety
[2,3]; e.g. between 1990 and 2013, in the province of Alberta
(Canada), up to 64 % of incidents that resulted in pipeline
failures, were associated with either internal or external
corrosion [4].
Overall, demonstrating the integrity of assets requires both
the development and effective implementation of a corrosion
management system (CMS). In the United Kingdom, the key
instruments which manage operational integrity and safety of
pipeline assets, include Pressure Systems Safety Regulations
2000 and Pipeline Safety Regulations 1996 (PSR) documents.
The UK PSR were instigated as a result of the Piper Alpha [ 5]
disaster, implementing a goal setting approach to ensure that
operators are operating pipelines safely and effectively while
associated risks and consequences are controlled and kept as
low as reasonably practical. As a demonstration, one of the
main statements covering maintenance is reflected in Clause 13
(Maintenance): “The operator shall ensure that a pipeline is
maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and
in good repair.”
In response to the above and overall pipeline integrity
management requirements, we stress on the importance of
 adopting a holistic approach [6,7], whilst upholding that even
with a well-established CMS, it is the implementation and
correct application of processes and “tools” that is critical to its
success. It is this aspect that is often misunderstood, especially
in the current economic climate (dominated by low oil prices),
where the cost of preventative measures is too often seen as
excessive, and corrosion management reverts to a “firefighting”
approach. In our experience, we emphasize the importance of
the four main tools that make up and effective CMS control:
Corrosion Risk Assessments (CRA)
Pipeline Risk Assessments (PRA)
In-line Inspection (ILI) and
Corrosion Control Strategy (CCS)
As already discussed elsewhere [7], the principal objective
of CRA and PRA studies is to encourage a balanced approach to
risk management, by ensuring that inspection and monitoring
resources are aligned with (and sufficient) in light of the
identified risks. As part of the integrity review process, these
risk assessments then drive future monitoring and inspection
strategies, and outputs can be used to validate CRAs and
ultimately help to optimize the CCS [7], which defines the
overall strategy for corrosion management.
As part of an effective CMS, it is now also widely accepted
that operational pigging is a key maintenance activity for
controlling or monitoring, internal corrosion of pipelines
[8,9,10]. An effective operational pigging strategy, when
deployed as part of an overall CMS can result in significant
reductions in operating costs, by maintaining integrity and
pipeline operation to its optimum. This is especially true in the
prevention of water hold-up. Through the elimination of the key
elements required for corrosion to occur; corrosion rates can be
lowered and in the process, increase pipeline throughput. The
additional benefit can also be considered as the reduction of
stress on topsides processing facilities, especially in the
presence of slugs.
Evidently, if regular operational pigging or an ILI cannot
be conducted, it is under these circumstances that flow
assurance and modelling would play a vital role in providing
input for engineering decisions. Especially in challenging, and
even in readily piggable pipelines, this need for flow assurance
is becoming ever more recognized [11,12]. For instance, there
are now a number of studies which show relevance of flow
modelling in predicting internal corrosion [13] and optimization
of corrosion management [14] of multiphase pipelines.
Standardized approaches have already been developed for
Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA) [15,16,17] of gas
and liquid petroleum pipelines; however, ICDA for multiphase
fluids is still under development.
developed
INTERNAL CORROSION DIRECT ASSESSMENT
The ICDA process in summary uses all inputs, assumptions,
and results of a Corrosion Risk Assessment (CRA) in
2 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
combination with flow modelling to identify critical locations
within a pipeline where internal corrosion will occur. These
critical locations are then subjected to direct inspection and the
overall condition of the pipeline is inferred from these results.
The ICDA process comprises the following four stages;
Stage 1 – Pre-Assessment – Data gathering and analysis.
Stage 2 – Indirect Assessment – Flow modelling and CRA.
Stage 3 – Direct Inspection.
Stage 4 – Post-Assessment – Review of process success.
Each of these stages has a crucial part in the overall ICDA
process and an ineffective assessment in any one of them will
only have a detrimental effect of the overall assessment.
The process and improvement of ICDA has been discussed
in numerous papers over the past decade
[18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]; however, the validation of ICDA
predictions is not. The simple reason for this being, if a pipeline
can be subjected to ILI then there is no need to perform ICDA.
Likewise if the pipeline is subject to ICDA, there is no need for
ILI. It is because of this the overall validation if the ICDA
process is limited to results with a small inspection area,
compared to the overall pipeline.
In the current work, through a case study, we outline our
approach to combine flow modelling and corrosion risk
assessment into a synergistic methodology to identify and
prioritize critical locations for direct inspection of a challenging
multiphase pipeline.
EFFECT OF FLUID DYNAMICS ON CORROSION
The relationship between flow and corrosion has been
widely discussed and researched [27,28]. It is generally
considered that flow, in particular turbulent and slugging, leads
to the breakdown of the protective films and/or scales on the
pipe wall, exposing the metal beneath to corrosion attack
[29,30,31]. The formation of these protective layers can be
related to CCS activities, e.g. corrosion inhibitor injection; or as
a result of the natural corrosion process, e.g. formation of iron-
based oxides or carbonates [32]. In the case of iron carbonates
(siderite, FeCO3), this relatively common scale found in CO2
containing environments is known to provide sufficient
protection against corrosion, under the right environmental
conditions [33,34]. However, physical damage to the formed
protective layers can lead to rapid localized corrosion [35]. It
must be commented that there is an ongoing (and mixed) debate
regarding the removal of FeCO3 scales (or corrosion products,
in general), induced by shear stresses related to multiphase
flow. For instance, it appears [36] that shear stresses required
for removal of protective scales far exceed what is considered
as realistic in terms of flow behavior, whilst it is also claimed
[37] that isolated “freak” shear stress episodes (especially
during slugging) can occur and lead to scales removal. As a
result, there is not a definitive evidence to confirm or deny the
removal of corrosion scales or products as a consequence of
flow; however, corrosion inhibitor films can be highly sensitive
to flow regimes. Slug flow is known to reduce the effectiveness
of corrosion inhibitors as shear stresses above 20 Pa are
 sufficient to remove films once formed [38]. Therefore, under
most turbulent flow conditions, the removal of corrosion
inhibitor films can and will occur, if consistent replenishment is
not achieved [39].
It needs to be stressed that although shear stresses assist in
providing the conditions necessary for corrosion to occur,
without an electrolyte, corrosion would not ensue [32]. As is the
case in most production pipelines, it is the free water entrained
within the fluids that provides not only the electrolyte, but also
carry and replenish corrosive and/or electrochemically active
species, e.g. CO2, H2S, Cl- etc., necessary to drive the
corrosion process [40]. In addition to shear stresses, inhibitor
efficiency is reduced in stagnant or low flow velocity conditions
[41]. As a result, identification of locations susceptible to water
hold-up or water wetting is critical in corrosion assessments
[42].
Flow modelling using a rigorous dynamic multiphase
simulator simplifies the ICDA process by rigorously calculating
the thermo-hydraulic behavior within each segment of the
pipeline based on the pipeline design and bathymetry and
process parameters such as flow, pressures, temperatures and
compositions. Such simulators provide useful information such
as the phase velocities, flow regime, water holdups, shear
stresses, water wetting, condensation rates etc. within the
pipeline which helps in a qualitative and quantitative ranking of
corrosion risks.
CASE STUDY
The case study presents a pipeline ICDA analysis, where
the main objective is to identity corrosion hotspots, and
locations for inspection on a challenging subsea multiphase
pipeline.
The assessed pipeline was at the end of its design life (a life
extension study was thus required), and exhibited potentially
high CO2 corrosion rates; but could not be subject to ILI and
operational pigging. Therefore, flow modelling and corrosion
assessments were considered as relevant tools to identify high
risk areas and then conduct direct assessment (ultrasonic
testing, UT) in those locations to infer the internal pipeline
condition. In order to inspect the pipeline it was determined that
subsea excavation activities would have to be conducted.
Considering the extent of inspection effort required, it was vital
to keep the number of locations to a minimum; yet still be
concise enough for the assessment to identify representative
critical locations within the pipeline.
Technical Background
Beyond what was considered at the pipeline design stage,
very little information on the fluid composition was available.
A historical CRA and operational measurements indicated
an increased risk of CO2 corrosion, mainly due to high water
cuts (up to 90 %vol.) and the CO2 content above 1.5 mol.%.
Formation of wax and its precipitation was known to occur;
however, the exact locations and extent were unknown. In order
to minimize the occurrence of wax deposits and control internal
3 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
corrosion, a chemical treatment regime, based on dosing of wax
suppressants and corrosion inhibitors was used, but their
availability was considered insufficient.
It was understood that CO2 corrosion rates, estimated using
NORSOK M-506 corrosion model, were in excess of
1 mm/year, which raised concerns over the potential condition
of the pipeline.
Technical Background
The assessment methodology consisted of the three
following steps:
(i) Data acquisition and analysis,
(ii) Pipeline flow modelling (simulation), and
(iii) Corrosion risk assessment.
Sections below outline our overall approach to ICDA of
multiphase pipelines. It should be noted that currently, there is
no standardized approach to ICDA that is applicable to
multiphase pipelines; however, the general process structure can
be deferred from the approach adopted in gas pipelines ICDA
methodologies.
Data Acquisition and Analysis
The first step is to evaluate the historical data available and
perform a gap analysis. As is the case in many situations, the
data available, is not always sufficient, and thus suitable
assumptions must be made which are generally on the
conservative side. Once the data was analyzed and assumptions
finalized, a number of sensitivity studies were considered such
that the flow modeling scenarios consider the pipeline
operational envelope, ensuring the worst case scenario with
respect to pipeline integrity is analyzed.
Flow Modelling
Considering that only design fluid composition data was
made available, and was not detailed enough, it was decided
that the “black-oil” model would be employed for flow
modelling. It was recognized that although the “black-oil”
model does not represent the exact fluid properties, it does
provide a good estimate as to the fluid behavior characteristics
in the absence of full fluid analysis. In summary, the “black-oil”
model, expresses oil as a liquid phase containing dissolved gas
from the oil reservoir. The model accounts for the gas that
“bubbles off” from the oil solution and predicts fluid properties
from the density of the gas, the oil, and the volume ratio of
produced gas to liquid. Empirical correlations evaluate the
phase split and physical properties of both elements in order to
determine the properties of each phase [43].
Flow modelling (simulations) was performed using a
dynamic multiphase flow simulator (OLGA®) with the
following details:
(i) Three-phase flash calculations enabled
(ii) Pipeline profile input from as-laid pipeline bathymetry,
Provision in the model was made for a riser that
extended 50 m above LAT (lowest astronomical tide)
and for a further 50 m on the platform.
 (iii) Rigorous discretization of pipeline segments (limited
to >20m and <100m in length)
(iv) Accurate input of pipe wall, insulation layers and
discretization, ambient medium (air exposed, buried/
trenched, river crossing etc.) and ambient temperature
for accurate heat transfer calculations.
(v) OLGAS 3-Phase mechanistic model which is
applicable for all inclination angles, pipe diameters
and fluid properties is employed. OLGAS considers
four flow regimes: stratified, annular, slug and
dispersed bubble flow; and uses a unique minimum
slip criteria to predict flow regime transitions.
(vi) Integrated corrosion calculations are enabled.
A full schematic of the pipeline model incorporating the
elevation profile can be seen in Figure 2.
Determination of Boundary Conditions
In order to account for different operational conditions,
determination of representative operational parameters was
essential in the selection of sensitivity studies. More
specifically, the following parameters were considered: (i) flow
rate, (ii) fluid temperature, (iii) pipeline pressure and (iv) fluid
composition.
The flow regimes and wall shear stresses for selected
scenarios (sensitivity studies) were predicted from the model,
which would be representative of the flow conditions reported
for the pipeline, since its commissioning date. Both factors
together, i.e. the shear stress and water hold-up, were used to
determine locations with the highest risk of corrosion; as a
direct result of the presence of free water and the likelihood of
inhibitor or corrosion scale stripping.
Corrosion Modelling and Risk Assessment
The high risk areas identified through corrosion and flow
modelling were subject to a corrosion risk assessment.
Corrosion modelling was based on the NORSOK M-506 CO2
corrosion model [44], with the following input parameters: (i)
temperature and pressure values at the critical locations as
estimated thorough flow modelling, based on the inlet and
outlet measurement from operational data, (ii) wall shear stress
values at the critical locations, (iii) gas CO2 concentration
measured at the platform separator and (iv) pH value for
formation water estimated using NORSOK M-506 CO2
corrosion model.
Each of the corrosion rates were considered against the
realization of corrosion at each location and ranked in terms of
criticality for inspection. The number of critical locations can
vary depending on the specific characteristics of each site;
however, having a location scatter helps to provide extra
confidence as to the total pipeline condition as opposed to a
small segment. Although the benefit of inspecting scattered
locations must also be considered against the likely benefit in
relation to the additional cost.
4 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Results and Discussion
The data analysis showed that operational pressure
remained consistent during production, as well as the pressure
drop between the inlet and outlet monitoring points. This
consistency was also mirrored in the temperature measurements,
at both the inlet and the outlet. It then became clear that the
pipeline operated under four distinct flow conditions, since its
commissioning, i.e.:
(i) Initial well operation – period of high and variable
flow, associated with a high Oil-Gas to Water ratio.
(ii) Start of well stabilization – period of relatively
consistent flow, associated with a high Oil-Gas to
Water ratio.
(iii) Stable well operation – period of consistent flow with
a steadily increasing water cut; well operation
suspended (shut-down) after this period.
(iv) Re-start of well operations – period of unsettled flow
with a variable water cut.
Within each of these four flow conditions, there were a number
of sensitivity studies considered; these were dictated by the oil,
water and gas production volumes. These sensitivity studies
were based on the different operational parameters monitored
during each flow condition. A total of thirteen sensitivity studies
were considered, with one of these representing a typical
operational condition prior to the shut-down period. Any water
holdup locations identified under this specific sensitivity study
would be considered representative of where free water would
exist upon cessation of flow.
Figure 3 shows the distribution of the time-averaged wall
shear stresses (generated by the conveyed fluids) along the
pipeline. In general, the estimated values fluctuated around
1 Pa, but were also observed to exceed 20 Pa in some locations.
However, the viscosity of the fluids calculated by the “black
oil” model was approximately 60% less than defined in the
design documents. The lower viscosity was ultimately used in
the modelling; hence, the actual wall shear stresses will vary
from those predicted.
Figure 4 shows the distribution of the time-averaged water
hold-up along the pipeline length. For most cases the water
hold-up was predicted to be in the range of 25 to 50 % vol. At
some low point sections of the pipeline, up to 60 % vol. water
pooling was identified.
Slugging was predicted to occur for all of the cases
considered, except for cases where the gas to oil ratio was low.
As these results were time averaged, they represent the most
probable locations and the most frequently occurring wall shear
stresses. Although, during individual slugging events, actual
water holdup and wall shear stresses are likely to be higher, the
locations at which these events occur are expected to remain the
same and would only present a difference in magnitude.
This was confirmed on completion of the review of all
model outputs; all of the sensitivity studies showed that water
hold-up and maximum shear stresses occurred at the same
 respective locations. The locations which were identified as
critical, where high shear stresses and water holdup were most
likely, were not necessarily only those associated with low
points, but also declining and transitioning straight sections
where turbulent flow was identified. These locations were
labelled A to M and are discussed in further detail below.
Critical Location Identification
The identified locations showed a clear grouping along the
entire pipeline.
Locations A to D
These critical locations represent approximately the first
third of the pipeline length, i.e. the inlet section, and showed the
highest levels of flow turbulence and water hold-up. The flow
modelling results showed the highest shear stresses, indicating a
high risk of corrosion inhibitor films stripping, removal of
already existing corrosion scales and/or disruption of their
formation. Additionally, it is very likely that the corrosivity of
the fluid in this segment will be higher due to the combined
effects of higher pressure and temperature. It is possible that
water wetting will occur over the full pipe circumference,
considering high water cuts in the conveyed fluids; this is now
considered typical for water cuts higher than 10 % vol. [45].
This in combination with corrosion inhibitor film stripping and
corrosion scale disruption would likely enhance internal
corrosion in this section of the pipeline.
Locations E to J
Six critical locations were identified for the middle section
of the pipeline and found at a lower risk of corrosion, when
compared to those at the inlet. This is primarily due to lower
temperature and pressure values, and at this point the conveyed
fluids would start to become saturated with corrosion products.
The results from the modelling also suggest that the wax
appearance temperature will be met, which means that there
would be an increased risk of wax precipitation and deposition
on the pipeline wall [46], and thus limited wetting. Flow within
this section was predicted to be less turbulent, as the fluid and
gas phases began to stratify, aided by the relatively flat pipeline
profile. As a result, the lowest shear stresses were estimated for
these locations. Consequently, corrosion is more likely to occur
at the bottom of the pipeline as a separate water phase develops
and accumulates.
Locations K to M
The final critical locations are found toward the end of the
pipeline where the conveyed fluids show the lowest corrosivity.
It is our view that this is due to the fluids becoming saturated
with corrosion products and the effects of lower temperature
and pressures. However, these locations were found to show
some of the highest values of wall shear stresses, which was due
to the fluctuation in fluids velocity, exacerbating the effects of
slugging at low points and the pressure head of the riser
pipework. Although the fluids are less corrosive, these locations
pose the highest water hold up, especially at the base of the
riser.
5 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Corrosion Rate Predictions
The uninhibited corrosion rates ranged from 2.1 to 0.96
mm/year, depending on the critical location. However, based on
our experience in modelling corrosion rates, it is very likely that
the estimated corrosion rates would decrease by one order of
magnitude under correct inhibiting conditions, e.g. 90%
corrosion inhibitor efficiency. As expected, the highest CO2
corrosion rates were observed at the inlet section of the
pipeline, and gradually decreasing towards the pipeline outlet.
Although, it is known that the NORSOK M-506 CO2 corrosion
model tends to provide conservative estimates [47], the
corrosion rates at these locations should therefore be considered
generic estimates rather than actual corrosion rates.
Inspection Location Prioritization
Based on the magnitude of corrosion risk at the identified
critical locations, A to M, four primary locations for inspection
were selected and justifications for ranking are summarised as
follows:
Location A
Characterised by a low point, approximately 20 m
downstream of the pipeline inlet. Presence of high shear stresses
and high turbulence, with full circumferential water wetting of
the pipe wall. The location is also dominated by the availability
of corrosive species and free water holdup.
Location C
Associated with steep decline, approximately 1 km
downstream of the pipeline inlet. The area was also found to be
associated with high shear stresses, turbulent flow (due to steep
decline) and the availability of corrosive species.
Location K
Located at the base of decline, approximately 2 km
upstream of the pipeline outlet. There was a combination of
high shear stress and water holdup within this location.
Location N
Associated with the base of the riser. It was identified that
there were a high probability for slugging creating high
turbulence resulting in high shear stresses. It was confirmed that
the area was susceptible to water hold-up.
Conclusions
In this specific case study, we identified four operational
flow conditions. Using temperature, pressure, water cut and the
oil to gas ratio as variables we conducted flow modelling of 13
sensitivity studies and identified 13 critical locations with the
potential for high shear stresses and water holdup. Through
corrosion risk assessment we narrowed down the critical
locations to four primary locations, which through direct
inspection could provide the client with the information
necessary to estimate the overall condition of the pipeline.
A series of general observations on similar case studies
have identified aspects for review in the overall approach to the
pipeline integrity plan:
 Locations identified by indirect inspection can show a very
good correlation with the ILI inspection results and where
anomalies exist, these need to be explained.
The identified corrosion hotspot locations from the indirect
inspection stages can correlate well to the actual corrosion
clusters. However, engineering experience and the OLGA
multiphase model strongly suggests that corrosion can occur at
certain locations due to the presence of water accumulation,
high shear stresses and slugging. The fact that no corrosion may
be found would indicate either a problem with the indirect
inspection or direct inspection results. As the indirect inspection
could correctly identify the majority of critical corrosion
locations to a <1% degree of accuracy, it is unlikely this is the
cause of the lack of correlation. In order to identify the possible
cause for this, a further review of the ILI inspection report and
results would be recommended.
Analysis of ILI inspection reports can indicate that there
are multiple factors that can lead to the reason no corrosion was
found at certain locations., for example, the speed tolerance of
the tool may have been exceeded numerous times during the ILI
run. As a result areas where these speed excursions apply, the
normal tool sizing tolerances may therefore not be applicable.
In addition to this, the inspection tool may have been designed
to work effectively up to a certain maximum wall thickness.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this study we combine flow modelling and corrosion risk
assessment in to a synergistic approach to identify and prioritize
critical locations for direct inspection of the challenging
multiphase pipeline. Internal corrosion is arguably not the
primary cause of pipeline failures. However, while internal
corrosion might not be considered a dominant or immediate
integrity threat to pipelines; it is undoubtedly the most difficult
to manage and probably the main reason why production assets
are ultimately retired from service.
Flow assurance together with corrosion risk assessments, or
separately, can be used to form another key pillar within a
holistic CMS. Individual ILI runs, can detect and report metal
loss (often attributed to corrosion), but further analysis of the
reported results can help to identify and diagnose the likely
cause of corrosion. In lieu of inspection data, flow assurance
aids with focusing direct inspection on areas most likely
effected by internal corrosion. Without ILI data, selection of
inspection locations becomes problematic, and the confidence
in results representative of the entire pipeline could be
perceived as unsafe. However, integrations of flow modelling
allows for a more representative condition assessment to be
built from a firm foundation, with decisions constructed upon
clear, transparent reasoning.
6 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
REFERENCES
[1] International Measures of Prevention, Application, and
Economics of Corrosion Technologies Study, Report No.
OAPUS310GKOCH (PP110272)-1, DNV GL USA, Houston,
TX (2016)
[2] M.B. Kermani, D. Harrop, The impact of Corrosion on the Oil
and Gas Industry, SPE Production and Facilities, 11(3), 186
(1996).
[3] P.R. Roberge, Corrosion Inspection and Monitoring, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ (2007).
[4] Alberta Energy Regulator, Report 2013-B: Pipeline
Performance in Alberta 1990-2012 (2013).
[5] B. Singh, P. Jukes, B. Wittkower, B. Poblete, “Offshore
Integrity Management 20 Years on – Overview of Lessons
Learnt post Piper Alpha”, Offshore Technology Conference,
Paper No. OTC 20051-PP, Houston, TX, 4-7 May 2009.
[6] D. Sandana, J. Soltis, J. of Pipeline Eng., 14(4), 269 (2015).
[7] D. Sandana, J. Soltis, J. Wilkinson, “Effective Implementation
of Asset Integrity Management Systems with Visualisation
Tools”, Paper No. C2016-7276, Corrosion 2016, NACE
International, Houston, TX (2016).
[8] J. Walker, In-Line Inspection of Pipelines: Advanced
Technologies for Economic and Safe Operation of Oil and Gas
Pipelines, Die Bibliothek der Technik, Vol. 327, 2nd Ed.,
Suddeutcher Verlag onpac GmbH, Munich (2014).
[9] D. Sandana, M. Dale, “An Integrated Approach to Corrosion
Management of Aging Offshore Assets”, Paper No. C2012-
0001390, Corrosion 2012, NACE International, Houston, TX
(2012).
[10] J. Soltis, P. Birkinshaw, D. Sandana, “Operational Pigging – A
Frontline Tool to Control Internal Corrosion of Pipelines”,
PPSA Seminar and Workshop, Aberdeen, UK, 18 November
2015.
[11] J. Brill, “Modeling Multiphase Flow in Pipelines”, The Way
Ahead, 6(2), 16 (2010).
[12] B. Guo, S. Song, A. Ghalambor, T.R. Lin, Offshore Pipelines
(Second Edition), Design, Installation, and Maintenance (2014).
[13] G. Gabetta, M. Margarone, A bennardo, “Internal Corrosion
Prediction using Fluid Dynamics for Pipeline Integrity”, 10th
Offshore Mediterranean Conference, Ravenna, Italy, 23-25
March 2011.
[14] P. Gartland, J. Salomonsen, “A Pipeline Integrity
Management Strategy Based on Multiphase Fluid Flow and
Corrosion Modelling”, Paper No. 622, Corrosion 99, NACE
International, Houston,TX (1999).
[15] Standard Practice, “Wet Gas Internal Corrosion Direct
Assessment Methodology for Pipelines”, NACE SP0110-2010,
NACE International, Houston, TX (2010).
[16] Standard Practice, “Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment
Methodology for Pipelines Carrying Normally Dry Natural Gas
(DG-ICDA)”, NACE SP0206-2006, NACE International,
Houston, TX (2006).
 [17] Standard Practice, “Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment
Methodology for Liquid Petroleum Pipelines”, NACE SP0208-
2008, NACE International, Houston, TX (2008).
[18] DG-ICDA: How confident Are You in Your Inspection
Locations, NACE, Corrosion 2012, C2012-0001437, Houston,
TX (2012)
[19] Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment of Buried Steel Pipeline
in Chinese Oil Industry, NACE, Corrosion 2008, Paper No.
08130, Houston, TX (2008)
[20] Practical Application of the Internal Corrosion Direct
Assessment Process for Natural Gas Pipelines, NACE,
Corrosion 2003, Paper No. 03189, Houston, TX (2003)
[21] The Challenges of implementing the Internal Corrosion Direct
Assessment Method, NACE, Corrosion 2003, Paper No. 03185,
Houston, TX (2003)
[22] Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment of Gas Transmission
Pipelines, NACE, Corrosion 2002, Paper No. 02087, Houston,
TX (2002)
[23] Facilitating Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment Using
Advanced Flow and Corrosion Prediction Models, NACE,
Corrosion 2008, Paper No. 08131, Houston, TX (2008)
[24] Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment for Multiphase Flow
Pipeline Systems, SPE International, SPE 103922 (2006)
[25] Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment for Offshore Pipelines,
NACE, Corrosion 2016, Paper No. 7092, Houston, TX (2016)
[26] Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment of a High Pressure Wet
Gas Pipeline Using NACE SP0110, NACE, Corrosion 2013,
Houston, TX (2013)
[27] V. Lagad, S. Srinivasan, K.W. Yap, “Effect of flow on
Corrosion – Experimental Findings and Empirical correlations”,
Paper No. C2012-0001194, Corrosion 2012, NACE
International, Houston, TX (2012).
[28] R.B. Dooley and V.K. Chexal, “Flow-Accelerated Corrosion”,
Paper No. 347, Corrosion 99, NACE International, Houston,
TX (1999).
[29] G. Schmitt, C. Bosch, P. Plagemann, K. Moeller, “Local Wall
Shear Stress Gradients in the Slug Flow Regime – Effect of
Hydrocarbon and Corrosion”, Paper No.02244, CORROSION
02 , NACE International, Houston, TX (2002).
[30] L. Maley, P. Jepson, “Wall Shear Stress and Differential
Pressure in Large-Diameter Horizontal Multiphase Pipelines”
Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 122 ): p.193-197
(2000).
[31] C. Canto, et al, “Integrity of Corrosion Inhibitor Films in
Multiphase Flow”, Paper No. 11238, Corrosion 2011, NACE
International, Houston, TX (2011).
[32] V. D. Atkinson, “Corrosion and Its Control” NACE
International, 2nd Edition, Houston, TX (1995).
7 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[33] S. Nesic, “Key issues related to modelling of internal
corrosion of oil and gas pipelines – A review”, Corrosion. Sci.,
49, 4308 (2007).
[34] J. Soltis, K. Lichti, A. Crisford, “Understanding and
Controlling CO2 corrosion through materials research, Oil &
Gas Australia, 9, 36 (2012).
[35] J. Han, D. Young, H. Colijn, A. Tripathi, S. Nesic, "Chemistry
and Structure of the Passive Film on Mild Steel in CO2
Corrosion Environments," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 p. 6296-
6302. (2009).
[36] Y. Yang, B. Brown, S. Nesic, M. Elena Gennaro, B. Molinas,
“Mechanical Strength and Removal of a Protective Iron
Carbonate Layer Formed on Mild Steel in CO2 Corrosion,”
Paper No. 10383, CORROSION 2010, NACE International,
Houston, TX ( 2010).
[37] R.H. Hausler, G. Schmitt, “Hydrodynamic and Flow Effects
on Corrosion Inhibition,” Paper No.04402, CORROSION
2004, NACE International, Houston, TX (2004).
[38] A. C. Palmer, R. A. King, “Subsea Pipeline Engineering “,
2nd Edition. PennWell (2008).
[39] Y. Chen, H. J. Chen, W. P. Jepson, “Effects of Multiphase
Flow on Corrosion Inhibitor”, Paper No. 12, Corrosion 99,
NACE International, Houston, TX (1999).
[40] M. Davies, P. J. B. Scott, “Oilfield Water Technology”, 1st
Edition, NACE International, Houston, TX (2006).
[41] E.M. Prodger, “An Overview of the Selection Procedures
Employed for Oilfield Chemicals”, Proceedings of the
Conference on Redefining International Standards and Practices
in the Oil and Gas Industry, IIR, (1992).
[42] V. V. Lagad, S. Srinivasan, R. D. Kane, “Facilitating Internal
Corrosion Direct Assessment Using Advanced Flow And
Corrosion Prediction Models”, Paper No. 08131, Corrosion
2008, NACE International, Houston, TX (2008).
[43] Pipesim User Guide 2012.2
[44] NORSOK Standard M-506 CO2 Corrosion Rate Calculation
Model, March 2005.
[45] C. Li, X. Tang, F. Ayello, J. Cai, S. Nesic, C. Iavn, T. Cruz, J.
Al-Khamis, “Experimental Study on Water Wetting and CO2
Corrosion in Oil-Water Two-Phases Flow”, Paper No. 06595,
Corrosion 2006, NACE International, Houston, TX (2006).
[46] A. Aiyejina, D. Chakrabarty A. Pilgrm, M. Sastry, “Wax
formation in pipelines: A critical review”, Int J. Multiphase
Flow, 37, 671 (2011).
[47] S. Olsen, “CO2 Corrosion Prediction by Use of the NORSOK
M-506 Model – Guidelines and Limitations”, Paper No. 03623,
Corrosion 2003, NACE International, Houston, TX (2003).
 ANNEX A

GRAPHS

Figure 1: Pipeline volumetric flow rate constituents. Figure 4: Distribution of the time-averaged water hold-up along
the pipeline length.

Figure 2: OLGA pipeline elevation schematic.

Figure 3. Distribution of the time-averaged wall shear stress along

the pipeline length.

8 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use