Corrosion Prediction Modelling

Corrosion
Prediction
Modelling
A guide to the use of
corrosion prediction
models for risk assessment
in oil and gas production
and transportation
facilities
A J McMahon, D M E Paisley
Sunbury Report No. ESR.96.ER.066

dated November 1997
Main CD
Contents
Contents
Page
Summary
Acknowledgements
Introduction 1
"Cassandra 98" Corrosion Prediction Spreadsheet

by A J McMahon
Introduction 5
Quick Start 6
Limitations of Corrosion Prediction Models 8
Detailed Description of the Spreadsheet 11
Comparing Output from the "Cassandra 98" Model with Field Data 27
Appendix 1: Henry's Law Constans for CO2 Dissolved in Brine 29
The Use of Corrosion Prediction Models During Design

by D E Paisley
Introduction 31
Important Factors not Covered by the Corrosion Model 35
Effect of Corrosion Inhibitors 42
Predicting the Effectiveness of Corrosion Inhibitors - 48
'The Inhibitor Availability Model'
Recommended Values for use in the Inhibitor Availability Model 51
Comparisons of the Inhibitor Availability Model with BP's Previous Model 62
Corrosion Rates of Low Alloy Steels 64
Preferential Weld Corrosion 65
Effects of Pitting 66
Choosing an Optimum Corrosion Allowance 67
Applying Models to Different Flow Regimes 69
Applying Models to Transportation Equipment 72
Applying Models to Process Equipment 86
Flow Velocities in Process Pipework 89
Economic Tools to Use During Materials Selection 92
References 95
Installation of the Cassandra 98 Excel Workbook 97

Summary
This document decribes BP's current approach to Corrosion Prediction and its
use during the design of pipelines and facilities. It is divided into two
sections.
The first section introduces a new prediction spreadsheet called Cassandra

98* which is BP's implementation of the CO2 prediction models published by
de Waard et al. It builds on these models to include BP's experience of such
systems. The pocket inside the front cover of this report contains a floppy
disc which contains the necessary programs and spreadsheets to run it
together with a set of installation instructions.
The second section discusses how the prediction model may be used for
design purposes and it introduces several improvements from previous
guidelines. These include the use of the probabilistic approach to corrosion
prediction and the use of corrosion inhibitor availabilities instead of
efficiencies. It also discusses the use of "corrosion risk categories" as a way
of quantifying the corrosion risk at the design stage. The floppy disc also
contains a spreadsheet for calculating the risk category.
To illustrate the points made examples have been obtained from many BP
assets worldwide. Where financial data are shown it is from 1997.
Since this subject is continually changing it is anticipated that these guidelines

will be updated in future years and so any comments or suggestions
regarding either the content or appearance of them would be very welcome.
*In Greek mythology Cassandra was the daughter of Priam and Hecuba. She was endowed
with the gift of prophecy but fated never to be believed. She is generally regarded as the
prophet of disaster........especially when disregarded.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following BP staff for their
contributions to these guidelines.
Jim Corbally
Laurence Cowie
Mike Fielder
Don Harrop
Bill Hedges
Will McDonald
Tracy Smith
Simon Webster
Richard Woollam
Introduction
Carbon dioxide corrosion represents the greatest risk to the integrity of

carbon steel equipment in a production environment. Compared with the
incidences of fatigue, erosion, stress corrosion cracking or over-
pressurisation, the incidences of CO2 related damage are far more
common. Unfortunately, the engineering solutions to eradicating the CO2
corrosion risk require high capital investments in corrosion resistant
materials. As Figure 1 shows, providing a corrosion allowance of 8 mm to
carbon steel flowlines costs a significant sum at circa US$1 million per 5
km but even this is insignificant in terms of the costs of the various
corrosion resistant flowline options.
Figure 1: Fully 35
Installed Costs for

Various Flowline 30
Duplex SS
Materials Options in
Colombia (1997) 25
20
Cost Bi-metal
per 13Cr liner
5 Km
($mill)
15
13%Cr
10
Carbon steel 8mm ca Carbon steel, no ca

0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Nominal Flowline Diameter - Inches
Similar relative costs are incurred when specifying corrosion resistant

materials downhole or in facilities. This is rarely justified. For this reason,
CO2 corrosion of carbon steel will always be a problem that BPX has to
deal with. Managing CO2 corrosion therefore becomes a priority and it can
become expensive. The replacement of the original Forties MOL and the
severe damage to the Beatrice MOL are two examples of high costs that
BPX have incurred in recent years due to unpredicted corrosion rates.
Successful management of CO 2 corrosion starts off with the identification
of risks and continues with the provision of suitable controls and the
review of the success of the controls via monitoring - as illustrated in
Figure 2.
1
INTRODUCTION
Figure 2: The Feedback

Loop that is Required for
Successful Management
of CO2 Corrosion Quantify
Risk
Monitor
Apply Controls Effectiveness
This document sets out BP’s approach to the quantification of CO2

corrosion risk through the use of predictive models. In doing so, it also
discusses the reliance that can be placed on corrosion inhibition as the
only viable control measure for carbon steel and the importance of
suitable corrosion monitoring. To put the importance of this into context,
corrosion costs BPX 8.3% of its capex budget and increases lifting costs
by 14%, an average of over 8 cents per barrel. Figure 3 shows that the
costs are distributed across the entire range of facilities.
2
INTRODUCTION
Figure 3: The
Distribution of Costs of Personnel
Downhole
Corrosion Across Ten Topsides 1% 13%
BPX North Sea Assets, 23%
1990 to 1994.
Chemicals
4%
Subsea
59%
The quantification of corrosion risk is required at several stages during an

assets life. The most obvious period is during the project phase when the
original materials of construction are being selected. This process must be
repeated during the life of the asset if failures or expansions require the
procurement of additional facilities. Quantifying the corrosion risk is also
important in tailoring inspection strategies. Risk based inspection is now
widely adopted and, as CO2 corrosion represents one of the most important
factors governing the probability of failure for much equipment, a reasoned
approach should be taken. It is important that this approach is theoretically
sound but also reflects past experience.
This version of the BP CO2 prediction model is the first to be published since
1993/4 when the guidelines on multiphase and wet gas transport respectively
were issued. The new guidelines incorporate changes by the authors to the
semi-empirical model used in the original guideline as well as comprehensive
guidance on how to use the spreadsheet included with this version. The new
model also includes the ability to predict the affects of changing flow
velocities on uninhibited corrosion rates.
3
INTRODUCTION
The new guidelines also consider the probabilistic approach to predicting

CO2 corrosion. Probabilistic approach to design in general is becoming
more widespread and offers several advantages over the traditional
deterministic approach. The probabilistic approach is neither endorsed nor
disallowed but is discussed as, in some cases, it may be more appropriate
than a deterministic approach.
The approach to designing for the use of corrosion inhibitors has been
changed significantly. The previous approach described the affects of an
inhibitor through the use of an efficiency factor, such as 90%. This does not
reflect BPX’s recent field data generated under severe conditions which
showed inhibitors can be more effective than predicted. "Inhibitor
efficiencies" have therefore been replaced with "inhibitor availabilities" that
more closely reflect field experience. There is a general move in the industry
towards this methodology and it offers several advantages.
However, it has become clear that for inhibitors to work effectively the
corrosion management system must be highly organised. Recommendations
are therefore included on methods to ensure that the inhibitor availabilities
assumed at the design stage occur during the operational stage.
4
"Cassandra 98" Corrosion Prediction Spreadsheet
by A J McMahon
INTRODUCTION
"Cassandra 98” is BP's new implementation of the 1991, 1993 and 1995 CO2
corrosion prediction models published by De Waard et al. The pocket inside
the front cover of this report contains a floppy disc with the programme
together with a set of installation instructions.
The 1991 and 1993 De Waard models are already widely used within BP and
elsewhere in a variety of customised forms. This report describes the new
Cassandra 98 spreadsheet for Microsoft Excel. It is based primarily on the
1993 De Waard model, incorporates some equations from the 1991 model,
and uses the 1995 model to assess velocity effects. The spreadsheet is
intended to capture all the best features of the 1991, 1993 and 1995 models
[1,2,3]. Certain extra features from outside the De Waard papers, based on
standard physical chemistry, have also been included. The source,
background and limitations of all the assumptions and equations in the
spreadsheet are fully documented in these guidance notes.
The Cassandra 98 spreadsheet is written in a simple and accessible format

within Microsoft Excel (version 7.0). It avoids the use of macros or special
techniques so that the logic and the calculations are as transparent as
possible. This approach also ensures that the spreadsheet is immediately
compatible with new versions of Excel.
The Excel add-in module "CRYSTAL BALL" (from Decisioneering Ltd, 1380
Lawrence Street, Suite 520, Denver, Colorado 80204, USA. Tel: +1 303 292
2291. Cost ~£100) enables probability distributions to be set for each input
cell and it then uses Monte-Carlo simulation to combine these into a
probability distribution for the resulting corrosion rate. You must buy
"CRYSTAL BALL" separately for your Excel environment. It can't be bundled
with this spreadsheet. The detailed use of CRYSTAL BALL is well covered in
the manufacturer's handbook and therefore is not repeated in these
guidelines.
Care is required when comparing the output of any existing in-house version
of the De Waard models against this new Cassandra 98 spreadsheet. It is very
easy for errors and untested assumptions to be entered into a spreadsheet
which might then perhaps be passed on from user to user and often
compounded with other assumptions. Cassandra 98 has been written from
scratch with a detailed re-evaluation of all assumptions, all of which are
presented. Cassandra 98 is intended to be a standard, reference version of the
De Waard approach for use within BP and its partners, until such time that a
more consistent approach to corrosion modelling becomes established within
the oil industry. The activities of the NORSOK industry forum in Norway are
making helpful moves in this direction.
5
"CASSANDRA 98" CORROSION PREDICTION SPREADSHEET
QUICK START
This section gives enough information to allow experienced modellers to

make a start. The subsequent section gives a more detailed description of
all the input and output parameters. The spreadsheets themselves also carry
frequent "cell notes". These are marked by a red dot in the top right hand
corner of those cells. Just double click on the cell to read the contents.
Input Parameters To carry out a basic calculation enter the following input values into the
cells with a white background:
Table 1: Input Parameter Comments Units Cell

parameters for a
numeric calculation
P total gas pressure bar F7
%CO2 CO2 in gas mole % (NB = v/v%) F8
%H2S H2S in gas mole % (NB = v/v%) M8
water composition ion ppm values ppm (NB = mg/ltr) A15-L15
brine pH enter known value, F17
or enter "d", "o", or
"x" to accept one of
the calculated values
shown in F18-F20
(see Page 17)
T System temperature oC F24
Ts Scaling temperature, enter oC F25
the calculated scaling
temperature, given in cell
F26, or another known or
preferred value
d hydraulic diameter m M24
U velocity m/s M25
Probabilistsic Inputs Only the inputs in the preceding Table are needed for a straightforward
numeric calculation. Some further information is required in order to carry
out a probabilistic calculation using CRYSTAL BALL. The spreadsheet can
easily be customised by individual users to permit more extensive handling
of probabilities:
6
Table 2: Additional
Parameter Cell Comment
Input Parameters for a
Probabilistic
Calculation P F7 use a uniform distribution; set F7 as
the maximum; set G7 as the minimum
%CO2 F8 use a normal distribution; adjust
standard deviation as necessary
brine pH F17 must enter a known or a calculated
value; use a normal distribution; adjust
standard deviation as necessary
T F24 use a uniform distribution; set F24 as
the maximum; set G24 as the minimum
d M24 use a uniform distribution; set M24 as
the maximum; set N24 as the minimum
U M25 use a uniform distribution; set M25 as
the maximum; set N25 as the minimum
Output Parameters The resulting output parameters are described in Table 3. See p23 for a more
detailed description of how to interpret and use these values. Briefly, the 1993
rate should be regarded as the minimum. Velocity effects may increase this
minimum rate as shown by the 1995 rate. Hence, the 1993 and 1995 rates will
normally give the lower and upper bounds on the expected corrosion rate.
The 1995 model is not accurate at low velocities and so it should be ignored
whenever it falls below the 1993 value.
Table 3: Output Parameter Cell Comments

Parameters
1993 basic Vcor E32 the uncorrected corrosion rate for
static conditions
1993 correction factors G32-K32 correction factors for pH, fugacity,
scaling, and glycol
1993 corrosion rate G34 the corrosion rate for static
conditions corrected for pH
1995 corrosion rate G39 the corrosion rate for dynamic
conditions calculated from the
components Vr and Vm in G37
and G38
93/95 merged corrosion G41 the average of the 93 and 95
rate corrosion rates; this cell enables
"CRYSTAL BALL" to combine the
93 and 95 probability distributions
7
LIMITATIONS OF CORROSION PREDICTION MODELS
The use of simple equations and the precision of the spreadsheet

environment can lead one to think that the De Waard corrosion models are
equally precise. However, this is not the case. The models are only valid
over a certain range of conditions, and even within this range a certain
amount of data has been ignored if it doesn't fit the main trends. Each model
appears to be constructed by obtaining a large number of corrosion rates
over a range of conditions and then finding an equation which draws a line
passing close to the majority of this cloud of points. The equations appear
to be freely adjusted in order to give the best fit to the data. The primary
concern is to obtain a good fit to the data, rather than obtaining
mechanistically rigorous equations. These are empirical engineering models
rather than scientific theories.
Neither the 1991 or 1993 De Waard papers give many precise details about
the range of validity of the models. The 1995 paper does give a more
thorough set of figures (see below) but still omits important features such as
the type of brine used in the tests, and the elapsed time when the corrosion
rates were measured. De Waard's very early work used a 0.1% NaCl solution
[4] and this may well have been used in all the subsequent studies because
his main focus has always been low salinity water in gas lines. Table 4
shows the approximate ranges of validity for the different parameters in the
Cassandra 98 spreadsheet.
Table 4 : Range of Parameter Range of 1991 Range of 1995 Comments
Validity of De Waar d & 1993 Model
Models Models
P <200 bar not defined

fCO2 <10 bar 0.3-6.5 bar
Oddo & Tomson pH -- -- <200oC, <1000 bar
XLpH -- -- <120oC
T <140oC 20-80oC
U 0 m/s 1.5 -13 m/s
8
The spreadsheet gives freedom to enter any value for most parameters.
When the input value is outside the approximate range of the 1991 and 1993
De Waard models then the text will turn RED in the cell as a warning. The
predicted corrosion rate may still be useful but the user must accept the
additional risk of going beyond the known limits of the correlations.
Limits of the 1995 To develop the 1995 model [3] corrosion rates were obtained on the IFE flow
Model loop (Kjeller, Norway) using a radiochemical technique to measure corrosion
rates. Tests were carried out over 2-3 days but there is no information about
the corrosion rate profile over this time or when the final data point was
taken. Data were obtained for the following conditions.
- St-52 DIN 17100 steel (Cr 0.08%, C 0.18%) which is similar to ASTM
A537 Gr1
- 0.1, 3.1, 8.5, 13 m/s flow velocity
- 20 - 90 oC
- 0.3 - 20 bara CO2
Certain inconsistencies in the data set were eliminated prior to developing the
model. These included:
- 0.1 m/s excluded

- 13 m/s excluded when corrosion rate less than at 8.5 m/s
- 90oC excluded
- CO2 >6.5 bar excluded
Eventually 221 data points were used in the main correlation (Figure 2 ref 3).
The main equations are specific to St-52 steel because, "The equations
obtained for St-52 showed a complete lack of correlation for the other steels".
The 15 other steels were normalised steels and quench-and-tempered (Q&T)
low alloy steels. These were examined over the following conditions to
produce some modified equations which take account of steel composition.
- 3.1, 8.5, 13 m/s flow velocity

- 60oC
- ca 2 bar CO2
- pH 4,5,6
9
For normalised steels a "Cr correction" and a "C correction" can be calculated
separately and together. For Q&T steels the "C correction" has no effect and
only the "Cr correction" is relevant. The Cassandra 98 spreadsheet does not
include the steel composition equations due to the poor correlations
obtained when fitted to the model.
Errors on Corrosion Errors in matching equations to data points are defined in the 1995 paper
Rates by "coefficients of determination". This is a complicated statistical function
ranging from 0 (poor correlation) to 1 (perfect correlation). It is not the same
as the "correlation co-efficient" in regression analysis which scales from -1
to 1. The "co-efficients of determination" in the paper are 0.91 for the main
St-52 equations (after excluding the data that doesn't fit), 0.83 for the
normalised steels, and 0.80 for the Q&T steels. For the main St-52 correlation
this corresponds to a standard deviation of 25% on the predicted corrosion
rate. This is the error given in this spreadsheet. Because of this error the
predicted corrosion rates are only shown to one decimal place. A "CRYSTAL
BALL" probabilistic analysis gives a more realistic impression of the error on
each prediction.
APPLYING THE MODEL TO DIFFERENT FIELD SITUATIONS
The De Waard models were all developed using water-only systems in the
laboratory. The 1993 model is intended for nearly static, aqueous conditions
and so for all but the lowest velocities (see page 77) it can be regarded as
the minimum corrosion rate of a water wet region in a gas/water, water/oil,
or a water/oil/gas system. Due to the different hydrodynamics in these field
cases some assumptions are required in order to apply the 1995 model
effectively. These assumptions will only affect the diameter and velocity
values used as inputs in the model. The other inputs will be unaffected.
Table 5 gives some suggested assumptions. However, users are free to
develop their own approaches to meet the demands of their own particular
circumstances. Some of the issues involved in extrapolating the models to
the field are discussed in more detail on pages 27-28.
10
Table 5: Applying the Field Situation Recommended Approach

1995 De Waard Model
to Field Situation
Water only use pipe diameter and water velocity
Liquid/Gas use hydraulic diameter (see p 21)

use true liquid velocity rather than nominal velocity
(see p 22)
Water/Oil use pipe diameter and total liquid velocity

(n.b. this ignores the possibility of water drop out or
stratification which could lead to the water phase
moving more slowly than the oil phase)
Water/Oil/Gas use a specialist multiphase program to calculate the

wall shear stress or the "C factor" for the pipe system,
then choose diameter and velocity inputs which
reproduce this hydrodynamic value.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE SPREADSHEET
Units are specified for each parameter listed in this section. The same units
are assumed in all the equations given below and throughout the Cassandra
98 spreadsheet. The spreadsheet has a "units conversion box" at cell P5. The
UNITS spreadsheet allows conversions between a wider range of units. The
SALTS spreadsheet enables conversion between an ionic analysis of brine and
the salts required to prepare a synthetic analogue. The FUGACITY
spreadsheet is a data-base used to calculate fugacity corrections at high total
pressures.
Total Pressure P...total gas pressure (bara, i.e. bar absolute) INPUT cells F7 and G7
For a multiphase system this is simply the prevailing local P in the gas. For
a liquid only system it is the P in the last gas phase which was in equilibrium
with the liquid, e.g. the separator gas in the case of a crude oil export line.
For a downhole liquid pressurised above the bubble point then use the
bubble point pressure (Figure 4).
For a simple numeric calculation, enter the P value into cell F7. Cell G7 is
then unused. For a probabilistic calculation using "CRYSTAL BALL", set up a
uniform distribution for P with F7 set as the maximum and G7 as the
minimum.
11
Figure 4: Schematic
Diagram of an Oil
Production System
(downhole, separator,
export)
%CO2 %CO 2 ...CO2 in gas (mole%, which is same as v/v%) INPUT cell F8
For a multiphase system this is simply the prevailing local %CO2 in the gas.
For a liquid only system it is the %CO2 in the last gas phase which was in
equilibrium with the liquid, e.g. the separator gas in the case of a crude oil
export line. For a downhole liquid use the %CO2 in the gas formed at the
bubble point. If this gas analysis is not available then use the CO2 dissolved
in the brine, the Henry's constant, and the bubble point pressure to back-
calculate the "effective %CO2" which would be required in the bubble point
gas in order to sustain the known level of dissolved CO2 (see box at cell
P19). Indeed, this procedure can be followed for any region where the CO2
dissolved in the brine is known, but the gas analysis is unknown.
There may be occasions when it is helpful to apply parts of the Cassandra

model to a water which is in equilibrium with ambient air (e.g. for pH
predictions). The appropriate atmospheric inputs are P = 1 bara and
%CO2=0.035 mole%. Remember that under these conditions the corrosion
prediction from the model will only relate to the dissolved CO2 component
and not the dissolved O2.
For a probabilistic calculation using "CRYSTAL BALL", set up a normal

distribution for %CO 2 using an appropriate standard deviation.
12
pCO2 pCO 2 ...partial pressure of CO2 (bara) OUTPUT cell F9
P.%CO 2
pCO2 =
100
fCO2 fCO 2 ...fugacity of CO 2 (bar) OUTPUT cell F10
The non-ideality of gases means that at high total pressures the partial
pressure is not an accurate description of the activity of a gas component.
The fugacity is the true activity of the gas component. The 1991 and 1993
models use pCO 2 in the main corrosion prediction equations and then at the
end apply a fugacity correction factor (Ffug) to account for fugacity effects.
In Cassandra 98 the equations from the 1991 and 1993 models use fCO2
directly, therefore there is no need to use a fugacity correction factor (Ffug).
The equations from the 1995 model in Cassandra 98 also use fCO2 directly -
instead of pCO2. Hence, in Cassandra 98, it is fCO2 which is used as the
primary parameter for all the equations which consider CO2 as an input.
Fugacity data from the work of R H Newton [5] are tabulated in the
FUGACITY.XLS spreadsheet in the workbook. The Cassandra 98 spreadsheet
uses the input values of temperature and total pressure to look-up the correct
value of the fugacity co-efficient (γ) in the FUGACITY spreadsheet,
fCO2 = pCO 2 γ
The R H Newton data are generally applicable to many pure gases. The data
show fugacity co-efficients as a function of "reduced temperature" and
"reduced pressure",
T
Tr =
Tc
where Tr is reduced temperature (dimensionless)

T is the prevailing local temperature (oC)
Tc is the critical temperature for the gas (from tables) (oC)
13
P
Pr =
Pc
where Pr is reduced pressure (dimensionless)

P is the total pressure (bar)
Pc is the critical pressure for the gas (bar)
Oilfields produce gas mixtures rather than pure gases. Hence, a difficulty
arises in deciding whether it is the Tc and Pc for methane or for CO2 that
one should use. In the Cassandra 98 spreadsheet, empirical values of Tc and
Pc are assumed which allow the Newton model to agree with the
CO2/methane mixed gas fugacity data in Figure 5 of the 1993 De Waard
paper to ± 10%. In other words the De Waard data are used to calibrate the
Newton model.
Table 6: Reduced Tc Pc
Temperature and (oC) (bar)
Reduced Pressure
Values for CO2 and CO2 31 73
Methane methane -82 45.8
empirical values used to correlate with De Waard data -37 56.7
The De Waard calibration data are valid up to 140oC and 250 bar. The
Newton data extends beyond these levels up to 300oC and 400 bar. The
general trends in the data will be accurate under these extreme conditions,
however, the absolute values are unchecked. For accurate work it will be
necessary to calculate or obtain the correct value of fugacity from elsewhere
and then manipulate %CO2 in cell F8 by trial and error in order to obtain
the correct fugacity in cell F10.
%H2S %H 2 S...H2S in gas (mole%, which is same as v/v%) INPUT cell M8
H2S is not included in any of the De Waard models. It is only used in the
Cassandra 98 spreadsheet in the calculation of solution pH by XLpH (see
below). It can be ignored completely simply by entering zero.
14
It is by lowering the solution pH that H2S can potentially increase the

corrosion rate, often in synergy with CO2. In practise, H2S tends to promote
FeS surface films which reduce the observed general corrosion rate but which
increase the likelihood of localised corrosion whenever the film fails. The
CO2 general corrosion rate is often assumed as the worst-case localised
corrosion rate for the regions with no FeS film.
An alternative approximate approach for handling the presence of H2S is to

assume that every 1 mole% H2S has the same corrosivity as 0.01 mole% CO2.
This rule of thumb assumes that 1 ppm dissolved CO2 and 200 ppm dissolved
H2S give roughly equal corrosion rates [6], and that H2S is roughly twice as
soluble in water as CO2 for a given partial pressure [7].
pH2S pH2S ...partial pressure of H2S (bar) OUTPUT cell M9
pH2S = P . %H2S
LIQUID PARAMETERS
Water Chemistry water chemistry ..ion concentrations (ppm, same as mg/ltr) INPUT cells A15-L15
The water chemistry is used to calculate the solution pH (see below). Enter
ppm values for Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Ba2+, Sr2+, Cl-, HCO3-, SO42-, Fe2+,
acetate. (NB enter the sum of all organic acids as acetate). Enter the %v/v
value for glycol in cell L15. Use the SALTS spreadsheet to check that the total
positive and negative charges of the ions are roughly balanced. Any
significant misbalance (e.g. >10%) may invalidate the pH calculation. Note
that ion charges are handled in general chemistry by using the term
"equivalents": 1 mole of positive charges is equal to one equivalent; in other
words 0.7 mole of Ca2+ ions is equal to 1.4 equivalents of positive charge.
Some further aspects of the acetate entry are discussed on p.19.
Total Dissolved TDS...total dissolved solids in water phase (ppm, same as mg/ltr) OUTPUT cell M17
Solids
15
This is the sum of all the individual dissolved ions concentrations. TDS and
[HCO3-] are used in the Oddo & Tomson pH calculation. TDS is also used
to estimate the "salting-out" of CO2 as salinity increases. This will tend to
reduce the concentration of dissolved CO2 and thereby reduce the corrosion
rate [8]. The box at X19 shows how to apply the salting-out correction. The
procedure uses "Henry's Law" to calculate the solubility of a gas in a liquid.
pCO2 = K H XCO2
where KH is Henry's constant (bar/mole fraction)

XCO2 is mole fraction of CO2 dissolved in brine.
The Henry's constant from the De Waard paper is only valid for a low
salinity brine (ca 0.1% NaCl). Therefore, by calculating the true Henry's
constant for a specific brine it is possible to apply a salinity correction to the
De Waard corrosion rate.
The salt-correction procedure first calculates the Henry's constant used by

the De Waard model (equation 28 from the 1993 paper- which is used in the
derivation of equation 13 in the 1993 paper),
1088.76
log10 K H = − 5.113
T + 273
where KH is Henry's constant (mole/ltr bar)
Note that this KH equation from the De Waard paper has different units
(mole/ltr bar) from those given earlier (bar/mole fraction). Much of the
confusion over Henry's constants arises from the wide and sometimes
awkward range of units which can be used to express the parameter. For
consistency in this report the De Waard equation for an aqueous solution
can be rewritten in order to maintain KH in units of (bar/mole fraction)..
 1088.76  18
log10 K H = −  − 5.113
 T + 273  1000
where K H is Henry's constant (bar/mole fraction)
16
The true Henry's constant is a function of both salinity and temperature

(Appendix 1) so that,
TDS
K true
H (for 0 −125°C) = (1.77 T + 47.1) + (45.2 T + 559)
10000
TDS
K true
H (for 125 −200°C) = 250 + 6500
10000
Therefore, the salt-correction factor, Fsalt, is,
De Waard
KH
Fsalt =
K true
H
The best way to use Fsalt is to apply it to fCO2 to give an "effective CO2
fugacity". This "effective fCO2" will give the correct dissolved CO2
concentration when used with the other equations in the Cassandra 98
model. The salt correction effect only becomes significant for TDS > 10% w/v.
Brine pH pH...brine pH control parameter INPUT cell F17
Enter the known pH value, or else enter a letter to accept one of the
calculated pH values given in cells F18, F19, or F20
❍ "d" or "D" will accept the De Waard distilled water pH
❍ "o" or "O" will accept the Oddo & Tomson brine pH
❍ "x" or "X" will accept the BP XLpH calculated value.
The accepted value is displayed in cell F21 for confirmation.
17
When doing a probabilistic calculation using CRYSTAL BALL then a numeric

value of pH (either known or calculated) must be entered. Use a normal
distribution for the probability adjusting the standard deviation so as to
cover appropriate minima and maxima.
pH(CO2) pH(CO 2 )...pH of distilled water containing CO2 OUTPUT cell F18
Equation (8) from the 1995 paper...
pH(CO2) = 3.82 + 0.000384 T - 0.5 log10 (fCO2)
fCO2 is used here rather than the pCO2 quoted in the original paper. The
equation is valid over 10-80oC. It gives the pH for pure water containing
dissolved CO2 at the prevailing temperature and fCO2.
pH(act) pH(act, Oddo) ..Oddo & Tomson calculated pH in brine OUTPUT cell F19
An empirical equation from reference 9...
pH = log10

 [
HCO 3 − ] 
 + 8.68 + 0.00405 (T * 9 / 5 * 32)...
 fCO2 * 14.5 * 61000 
 
+0.000000458 (T * 9/5 * 32)2 - 0.0000307 (P * 14.5)...
1 /2
 TDS   TDS 
−0.477   + 0.193  
 58500   58500 
fCO2 is used here rather than the pCO2 quoted in the original paper. The
equation is valid up to 200 oC and 1200 bar, but is inaccurate for low values
of [HCO3-]. The Cassandra 98 spreadsheet is set to give an error for pH(act,
Oddo) if [HCO 3-] < 50 ppm.
18
pH(act, XLpH) pH(act, XLpH) ...XLpH calculated pH in brine OUTPUT cell F20
XLpH is an Excel add-in function for calculating both pure water and brine
pHs with no restrictions on salinities or component concentrations. It was
developed by XTP, Sunbury using well documented code published by the
US Geological Survey (the "PHREEQ" model). The original version of XLpH
[10] has since been updated to include pH2S as an input parameter. XLpH has
been validated against other pH models such as in CORMED and also against
literature and recent laboratory values.
XLpH uses the individual ion concentrations in cells A15-L15. The positive
and negative charges must be approximately balanced (see "water chemistry",
p15, above). XLpH will automatically compensate for any small misbalances
by adding Na + or Cl - ions.
Enter the sum of all organic acids as acetate. Note that the pH of CO2-
containing-brine will differ depending on whether the acetate is added in the
form of sodium acetate salt or acetic acid...
pH of 0.5 M NaCl / 300 ppm NaHCO3, 1 bar CO2, 25 oC plus...
no acetate 6.8 mM Na acetate 6.8 mM acetic acid

(i.e. 571 ppm) (i.e. 422 ppm)
5.53 5.41 4.17
XLpH assumes that the acetate value entered in cell K15 is acetic acid,
because this is the worst case. If one wishes to assume Na acetate then zero
should be entered for Ac and the molar equivalent of Na acetate should be
added to the Na and Cl entries. Unfortunately a field water analysis will not
directly reveal whether Na acetate or acetic acid should be used to simulate
the water chemistry. This can only be established by making laboratory pH
measurements under CO2 saturation and comparing the results with the
XLpH model.
Inclusion of the organic acid concentration will always improve the reliability
of a prediction. However, when organic acid data is not available it is possible
to make some rule-of-thumb approximations in order to aid progress.
Organic acids are typically present in formation water at <30ppm. Therefore,
for bicarbonate >150ppm, the presence of organic acids is likely to make little
difference to the calculated pH and therefore corrosion rate. In such cases,
an API water analysis (which omits organic acids) will often suffice. If the
formation water is low in bicarbonate (<150ppm), then there is more chance
that organic acids could make a significant contribution to the in situ pH and
calculated corrosion rate and so an acetate entry should be added to the
water analysis.
19
Accepted pH accepted pH ...confirmation of selected pH OUTPUT cell F21
This is confirmation of the pH value which has been accepted for the
corrosion prediction equations.
T T...temperature (oC) INPUT cell F24
The prevailing local temperature. When doing a probabilistic calculation

using CRYSTAL BALL then use a uniform distribution for the temperature :
set F24 as the maximum and G24 as the minimum.
Scaling T T s ...selected scaling T (oC) INPUT cell F25
Enter a preferred value for the scaling temperature or enter "a" (or "A") to
accept the calculated value shown in cell F26.
Researchers are still actively investigating the issue of what happens to

corrosion rates at temperatures above the scaling temperature. Previous
work has shown that sometimes the scale films are protective and can
reduce the corrosion rate, whereas sometimes the films are non-protective
so that the corrosion rate continues to increase. Choosing one or other of
these options could on the one hand lead to significant under-design, and
on the other hand to significant over-design. Therefore, until the matter is
fully resolved BP prefers to choose a middle course for design purposes. BP
assumes that the corrosion rate reaches a peak at the scaling temperature
and remains on a plateau at the same value for higher temperatures. The
Cassandra 98 spreadsheet follows this approach. In order to achieve this
outcome both fCO 2 and pH are set to a plateau for T > Ts.
Figure 5: The Possible Corrosion Rate

Effects of High
Temperature Scaling on
the Corrosion Rate IFE, Norway
data
BP approach
De Waard
approach
Ts
Temperature
20
De Waard Calculated Ts ...De Waard calculated scaling T ( oC) OUTPUT cell F26
Scaling Temperature
Equation (13) from the 1995 paper,
 2400 
Ts =   − 273
 6.7 − 0.44log10fCO2 
This is obtained by setting log 10 Fscale = 0 (i.e. F scale = 1) in equation (13) in

the 1995 paper. Note that the equation above is expressed in oC and uses
fCO2 rather than the oF and pCO2 used in the paper. The 1993 paper gives a
similar equation to the 1995 paper but uses a factor of 0.67 in front of the log
term instead of 0.44.
Diameter d...hydraulic diameter (m) INPUT cell M24
A diameter input value is only required for the velocity equations in the 1995
model. It is not needed for the 1993 model. The 1995 paper actually uses
"hydraulic diameter" rather than a simple pipeline diameter. Let Dp be
pipeline diameter, and let Dh be hydraulic diameter, then,
..for gas/liquid pipelines, Dh < D p
Dh = 4 A / S
..where A is the cross-sectional area of the liquid in the pipe

S is the cross-sectional perimeter length of the liquid
region (i.e. liquid/pipe + liquid/gas interfaces, see Figure 6)
..therefore for a pipeline full of liquid, Dh = D p
21
Figure 6: Explanation
of Parameter "S" in a
Gas/Liquid System
cross-sectional perimeter length

of the liquid region
There is a box at cell P39 for calculating hydraulic diameters in gas/liquid

lines. The ratio of the liquid and gas cross-sectional areas, or the ratio of the
liquid depth to the pipe radius, is required as an input parameter.
Calculation of this parameter is outside the scope of the Cassandra 98
spreadsheet.
When doing a probabilistic calculation using CRYSTAL BALL then use a

uniform distribution for the hydraulic diameter : set M24 as the maximum
and N24 as the minimum.
Flow Velocity U...flow velocity (m/s) INPUT cell M25
A flow velocity input value is only required for the velocity equations in the
1995 model. It is not needed for the 1993 model. There is a box at cell P5
which enables calculation of flow velocity from pipe diameter and flow in
liquid only lines. The calculation is more complicated for the liquid phase
in gas/liquid lines, therefore, the box at cell P39 should be used.
When doing a probabilistic calculation using CRYSTAL BALL then use a

uniform distribution for the flow velocity : set M25 as the maximum and N25
as the minimum.
22
Outputs : 1993 De Waard Model
Vcor...Basic Vcor ...basic corrosion rate (mm/yr.) OUTPUT cell E32

Corrosion Rate
1710
log10 Vcor = 7.96 − − 0.67 log10 (fCO2 )
T
The basic corrosion rate is adjusted by multiplying with the pH and

occasionally the glycol correction factors (FpH and Fglyc respectively). The
application of each of these is discussed below.
For the basic corrosion rate and the correction factors, the values reached at
the scaling temperature are set to remain the same at higher temperatures.
This is to ensure that the corrosion rate reaches a peak at the scaling
temperature and then remains on a plateau at the same value for higher
temperatures (see Ts section above). Hence, the BP approach does take
account of scaling at high temperatures but doesn't use the De Waard scaling
factor, Fscale, directly.
pH Correction F pH ...pH correction factor OUTPUT cell G32

Factor
Equations (9) and (10) from the 1991 paper,
log10 FpH = 0.32 (pH CO2 - pH act)
for pH CO2 > pHact
where ...pHact is the actual pH of the brine which wets the pipewall
...pHCO2 is the pH under the same conditions but in pure,
salt-free water
log10 FpH = - 0.13 (pHact - pHCO2)1.6
for pHCO2 < pHact
23
These equations show that as pHact rises, FpH will get smaller and so the
corrosion rate will fall.
These equations use pHCO2 instead of the "pHsat" used in the De Waard
paper. pH sat is the pH at which a brine first becomes saturated with either
FeCO3 or Fe3O4 as a result of the steel corroding and building up dissolved
Fe2+ in the solution. The problem with pHsat is that it is difficult to define.
Even the De Waard paper only gives some approximate expressions for one
particular brine composition (10% NaCl). Furthermore, there is serious doubt
over the whole concept of a fixed saturation pH due to the observation of
massive supersaturation effects by IFE (Norway) and also within BP.
Dissolved Fe2+ concentrations can often reach hundreds of ppm and can
exceed the theoretical saturation values by orders of magnitude. Hence,
pHsat is not a reliable concept.
Until the pHsat issue is resolved BP prefer to use pHCO2 as an alternative

reference point. It has the advantage that it is well defined and is valid over
a wide range of conditions. Therefore, a pure water system will give pHact
= pH CO2 and so FpH = 1 in the BP approach. Certain conditions can make
pHact < pH CO2 (e.g. high salinity, zero bicarbonate) and so FpH > 1. The
presence of bicarbonate will tend to make pHact > pHCO2 and so F pH < 1.
One way of reconciling these divergent approaches is to say that the direct
De Waard approach uses Fph to derive the initial corrosion rate in a brine
before corrosion products build up and gradually reduce the corrosion rate
until it reaches a steady state. This is the issue discussed in the 1993 De
Waard paper. The BP approach on the other hand does not deal with initial
corrosion rates at all. It deals only with steady state corrosion rates and uses
Fph to express the effect of water composition on the steady state rate. This
effect is not covered in the direct De Waard approach. In essence BP have
taken an equation from the direct De Waard approach and then adapted it
for another purpose. Hence, overall, the two approaches are different but
consistent.
Fugacity Correction F fug ...fugacity correction factor OUTPUT cell J32

Factor
 1.4 
log10 Ffug = 0.67  0.0031− P
 T + 273 
24
Ffug is not required in the BP approach because fCO2 is used in preference

to pCO2 throughout the calculation and so fugacity has already been
accounted for.
Scaling Correction F scale ...scaling correction factor OUTPUT cell K32

Factor
 1 1 
log10 Fscale = 2400  − 
 T + 273 Tscale + 273 
where ... T > Ts otherwise F scale = 1

... Tscale is scaling temperature (defined above)
This factor is not used directly in the BP approach. It is included in the

spreadsheet only for completeness.
Glycol Correction F glyc ...glycol correction factor OUTPUT CELL H32

Factor
log10 Fglyc = A (log 10 W - 2)
where ... A is a constant = 1.6 to a first approximation

... W is water content (%) of water/glycol mixture
BP only use this factor for cases without corrosion inhibitor. When a
corrosion inhibitor chemical is used or is planned then BP assume that any
effect of glycol is included within the corrosion inhibitor efficiency (normally
90%, but see discussion on pages 42-48).
Corrected V' cor ...corrected corrosion rate (mm/yr.) OUTPUT cell G34
Corrosion Rate
This is BP's preferred output from the 1993 DeWaard model. It is the base
corrosion rate multiplied by the FpH correction factor. Note that for the basic
corrosion rate and the correction factor, the values reached at the scaling
temperature are set to remain the same at higher temperatures. This is to
ensure that the corrosion rate reaches a peak at the scaling temperature and
then remains on a plateau at the same value for higher temperatures (see
T(s) section above). Hence, the BP approach does take account of scaling
effects at high temperatures but doesn't use the De Waard scaling factor,
Fscale, directly.
25
Outputs : 1995 De Waard Model
The 1995 De Waard model is derived in a different fashion from the 1993
model, in particular it does not use the idea of correction factors applied to
a base corrosion rate. Instead, the overall corrosion rate is calculated from
two components : the reaction rate Vr and the mass transfer rate Vm.
Reaction Rate Vr ...reaction rate (mm/yr.) OUTPUT cell G37
1119
log10 Vr = 6.23 − + 0.0013 T + 0.41log10 (fCO2 ) − 0.34pH act
T + 273
Mass Transfer Rate Vm ...mass transfer rate (mm/yr.) OUTPUT cell G38
Equation (10b) from the 1995 paper,
U 0.8
Vm = 2.45 fCO2
d 0.2
Overall Corrosion Vcor ...corrosion rate (mm/yr.) OUTPUT cell G39

Rate
1 1 1
= +
Vcor Vr Vm
where Vcor is overall corrosion rate

Vr is reaction rate
Vm is mass transfer rate
26
1993 & 1995 Vcor ...merged corrosion rate (mm/yr.) OUTPUT G41
Merged Corrosion
Rate The merged rate simply takes the average of the 1993 and 1995 values. This
allows CRYSTAL BALL to combine the probability distributions for the 1993
and 1995 rates so that one can see the lower and upper bounds on the
expected corrosion rate.
1993 1995
merged V cor + Vcor
Vcor =
2
The 1993 rate is regarded as the minimum. Velocity effects may increase this
minimum rate as given by the 1995 value. The 1995 model is not accurate at
low velocities so it is ignored whenever it falls below the 1993 value, and
then the merged rate is the same as the 1993 rate.
COMPARING OUTPUT FROM THE “Cassandra 98” MODEL WITH FIELD DATA
The validity of any corrosion prediction model depends on how well it

agrees with the measured corrosion rates in the field. However, the
comparison is not always straightforward. This is because the models are
developed from well characterised, clean and stable systems in the
laboratory, and they are being applied to partially characterised, dirty, and
variable systems in the field where the full operating history is not always
known. This is no criticism of field activities. It is simply a fact of life of
operations where the aim is to produce hydrocarbons, not to generate
completely rigorous corrosion data.
The discrepancies between the models and r eal field corrosion data which
do exist arise because there are parameters in the field which the model can
not take account of effectively, or at all, e.g. surface coatings (scales,
corrosion products, biomass), crude oil wetting, local hydrodynamics, weld
metallurgy.
The industry generally regards the De Waard model as conservative

compared to the field, i.e. it over-estimates the field corrosion rate. Much of
this opinion is based on anecdotal and semi-quantitative evidence - often not
published in the open literature - but it is confirmed by the occasional formal
presentation [12]. BP is currently compiling a database of field corrosion data
27
from a variety of sources which will be used to assess the Cassandra 98

spreadsheet presented here.
In the meantime Table 7 gives a comparison of the Cassandra 98

spreadsheet against new laboratory data; data which were not used in
compiling the model. The final column shows whether the observed
corrosion rate falls within 15% of the range encompassed by the 1993 and
1995 models and there is some agreement. However, the discrepancies
show the pitfalls in trying to push the accuracy of the model too far. It is
best used to gain order of magnitude estimates of corrosive situations rather
than absolute corrosion rates to several decimal places.
Table 7: Comparison corrosion rate (mm/yr.)

of Model Predictions T U fCO2 observed 93 95 correct?
with Laboratory Data (oC) (m/s) (bar) model model
BP 1993 0.1% NaCl, 3 litre flow loop (15 mm ID)
25 1.9 1 5 1.1 5.8 yes
25 1.9 0.27 2.2 0.5 1.9 yes
35 1.9 0.27 3.4 0.7 2 no
BP 1992 Forties brine, beaker test and 5 litre flow loop (15 mm ID)
50 0 0.88 2.5 1.5 0.1 no
50 1.2 0.88 2.5 1.5 3.2 yes
CAPCIS Flow Project Forties brine, flow loop (10 mm ID)
25 3.2 1 1.8 0.6 3.3 yes
50 1.1 0.88 3.8 1.5 3.2 yes
50 1.7 0.88 4.1 1.5 3.9 yes
50 2.5 0.88 2.5 1.5 4.4 yes
50 3.2 0.88 4 1.5 4.7 yes
CAPCIS Flow Project 3% NaCl, flow loop (10 mm ID)
25 3.2 1 6 1.2 7.7 yes
50 3.2 0.88 12.1 3.1 9.2 no
70 3.2 0.88 17.4 5.3 8.4 no
50 1.1 0.88 6.8 3.1 4.8 no
50 1.7 0.88 7.3 3.1 6.4 yes
50 2.5 0.88 8.6 3.1 8.1 yes
28
APPENDIX 1 : "Henry's Law" Constants for CO2 Dissolved in Brine
"Henry's Law" describes the solubility of a gas in a liquid,
pCO2 = K H XCO2
where KH is Henry's constant (bar/mole fraction)

XCO2 is mole fraction of CO2 dissolved in liquid
Henry's constants are dependant on both temperature and salinity and they
are easily found for CO2 dissolved in pure water [e.g. 13]. The data for brines
is less extensive [14-16]. Figure 7 is compiled using data from all these
sources. The reduced number of points at higher salinity are still sufficient to
show that the data in the 0-10% region can be reliably extrapolated up to ca
30% NaCl. Note that the 16 and 31% data at 75 and 100oC are actually for
MgCl2 in the original paper but have been plotted in Figure 7 at the
equivalent ionic strength of NaCl.
Figure 7: Henry's
14000
Law Constants as a
Function of Salinity 12000 T (oC)
Kh (bar/mol frac)
200
10000
175
8000 150
125
6000 100
75
4000 50
30
2000 10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
[NaCl] %w/w
The lines in this figure can be represented by the following equations (to
within ±15%),
29
TDS
K H (for 0 −125°C ) =(1.77 T + 47.1) + (45.2 T +559 )
10000
TDS
K H (for 125 − 200°C )250 + 6500
10000
where K H is Henry's constant (bar/mole fraction)
Cell AD31 in the spreadsheet uses these equations to calculate the true
Henry's constant for the input values of T and TDS.
30
The Use of Corrosion PredictionModels
During Design by D M E Paisley
Introduction
The value and purpose of predictive corrosion rate models should be neither
overlooked nor exaggerated. The models (of which CO2 models are one
example) are tools for the Materials Engineer to use during materials selection
studies. The models help to quantify the corrosion risk and to help assess
the impact of various process or production scenarios. However, corrosion
rate prediction models should always be used in conjunction with other tools
such as life cycle costing as well as previous operational experience if the
final materials selection is to offer the optimal balance between cost and
reliability. As each project will have unique economic factors, materials
selection should reflect these and the economic assessment will be as
important as the corrosion modelling in the selection of the final materials.
In-depth coverage of techniques such as life cycle costing and estimating
values are beyond the scope of this document but both techniques are briefly
covered in a previous publication [17].
Over the past few years, several design guidelines have been issued by BP
for dealing with CO2 corrosion risks. Each document deals with a specific
application. This more general document summarises all previous guidelines
but can not deal with the specific issues to the level of detail possible in the
individual guidelines. The previously issued guidelines are listed in Table 8.
31
THE USE OF PREDICTIVE MODELS DURING DESIGN
Table 8: Previously
Issued Design Report Title Authors Report Number Issue Date
Guidelines
A corrosion philosophy for the I D Parker ESR.93.ER.013 1/3/93
transport of wet oil and J Pattinson
multiphase fluids containing A S Green.
CO2
A corrosion philosophy for I D Parker ESR.94.ER.016 28/8/94

the transport of wet J Pattinson
hydrocarbon gas containing A S Green.
CO2
Assessment of a top of line D Paisley Branch Report 5/10/92

versus bottom of line corrosion J Pattinson No 124 421
ratio for use in the design of S Webster
wet natural gas pipelines
The application of pH D Paisley ESR.95.ER.042 10/4/95

moderation as a means of
corrosion control for wet gas
pipelines
The effects of low levels of D Paisley ESR.95.ER.073 22/6/95

hydrogen sulphide on carbon R Gourdin
dioxide corrosion: A review
of industry practice and a guide
to predicting corrosion rates
A corrosion philosophy for the transport of wet oil and multiphase

fluids containing CO 2
This was the first undertaking in recent years to document a BP approach

to defining internal corrosion risks and the basic approach is still followed.
It recommended the use of the de Waard and Milliams model to predict in-
situ corrosion rates along with a 90% corrosion inhibitor efficiency. Much
of the work is still valid but it is in the areas of high temperature scaling,
corrosion inhibitor efficiencies and impact of various flow regimes that the
32
new guidelines differ. Most of the recommendations made in these

guidelines have been reproduced or superseded in the present document and
therefore the original guidelines are redundant.
A corrosion philosophy for the transport of wet hydrocarbon gas

containing CO2
This was a companion document to the guidelines on wet oil and multiphase
systems. The basic approach was similar but this document dealt with the
specific wet gas application. Most of the recommendations made in these
guidelines have been reproduced or superseded in the present document and
therefore the original guidelines are redundant.
Assessment of a top of line versus bottom of line corrosion ratio for

use in the design of wet natural gas pipelines
Wet natural gas pipelines operating under stratified flow have two distinct
corrosion environments : (a) the bottom of line which is continually wetted
by condensed water, hydrate inhibitor and hydrocarbons, and (b) the top of
line which is wetted intermittently by condensing liquids. The corrosion rate
at the top of the line is lower than that at the bottom due to the more limited
exposure to corrosive species. Predicting this rate is done by predicting the
bottom of line rate using models in the normal way and applying a
moderating factor for the top of line rate. Up to 1992, BP used a factor of
0.3, i.e. the top of line corrosion rate was predicted to be 30% of the bottom
of line rate. When inhibitors are used to control the bottom of line rate, the
top of line corrosion rate becomes the limiting rate as inhibitors are assumed
not to protect against condensing corrosion. This report reviewed the top of
line factor and recommended the adoption of a moderating factor of 0.1. For
inhibitor efficiencies up to 90%, the top of line corrosion rate is therefore not
the limiting rate. This approach is no longer valid since BP have moved away
from the direct use of inhibitor efficiencies, as described later in this report.
However, the assumption that top of line rates are 1/10th of the predicted
uninhibited bottom of line rates can still be used. For applications were the
'top of line' corrosion rate is the faster rate (using the 0.1 moderating factor)
then a more detailed evaluation should be carried out. Such a scenario does
not lend itself to the use of simplified guidelines.
33
The application of pH moderation as a means of corrosion control

for wet gas pipelines
This technique is not widely applicable but may find niche applications in
highly corrosive wet gas lines utilising recycled glycol for hydrate control.
It is covered in more detail on p75 but if this technique is of interest the full
guideline document should be reviewed.
The effects of low levels of hydrogen sulphide on carbon dioxide

corrosion: A review of industry practice and a guide to predicting
corrosion rates
This document summarised how low levels of H2S influence corrosion rates
dominated by CO2. The conclusion was that H2S at levels below the NACE
criteria for sulphide stress corrosion cracking (ref MR0175, NACE
Publications) reduces general metal loss rates but can promote pitting. The
pitting proceeds at a rate determined by the CO2 partial pressure and
therefore CO2-based models are still applicable at low levels of H2S. Where
the H 2S concentration is greater or equal to the CO2 value, or greater than
1 mole%, the corrosion mechanism may not be controlled by the CO2 and
therefore CO2 based models may not be appropriate.
Summary of Previous Guidelines
In summary, the old guidelines are generally still applicable. What has
changed is BP’s views on the reliability and performance of corrosion
inhibitors as well as the availability of updated models incorporating flow
affects. The old guidelines defined a corrosion inhibitor efficiency of 90%
with no scope for variation. There were also stringent velocity restrictions
for use under multiphase conditions which restricted the energy of slug flow
to below 20 Pa, later raised to 100 Pa. In light of favourable field data, this
approach is now seen as too pedantic and inhibitor availabilities are seen as
a better way of describing the role of inhibitors. These differences in
approach are covered in more detail in the following sections. Furthermore,
the corrosion rate prediction model (p5-30) does not cover some aspects
that are important during design and these are covered in the next section.
34
Important Factors not Covered by the Corrosion Model
The Probabilistic The modelling approach outlined in this document deals with all the inputs
Approach to (mole% CO2, temperature etc.) on a deterministic basis. However, each input
Predictive Modelling will have a level of uncertainty associated with it and this can have important
effects on the outcome. One way to deal with this it to calculate a range of
output values, (in this case the predicted corrosion rate) across the whole
range of input values. Where the model is dealing with several inputs
(temperature, pressure, CO2 mole %, pH, scaling factor), this can be time
consuming. Also, the value of these inputs will not all vary in a uniform
manner. Some will behave uniformly while others may behave in a normal
or log-normal manner.
Calculating the impact of all these variables is time consuming, unless a

programme such as Crystal Ball is used. This is an add-in to Excel and
handles the variability by performing a Monte Carlo analysis. Any number of
iterations can be performed and the output is displayed in terms of a
probability, rather than as a discreet value. In general, a minimum of 1,000
iterations, involving tens of thousands of individual calculations are required
to show the effects of the variability in input data. A modern PC can perform
such a task in a minute or two.
The important factors to consider are the range and type of distribution
assumed for each variable. If process data are available, this will form an
ideal basis for determining the range and type of distribution but if this is
lacking, some assumptions will have to be made.
Using distributions to define variables in a predictive model can have

significant effects on the outcome.
Worst Case Design Engineering design traditionally uses worst case inputs so that the final design
will be safe under all foreseeable combinations of events. This approach has
also been adopted when predicting corrosion rates, where pressure and
temperature etc. are used as inputs to the models. In the past this approach
was the only viable one as predicting the enormous range of possible
outcomes for all variables would have been too time consuming but it can
result in substantial over-design. Metal loss corrosion processes do not lead
to sudden failure due to a combination of variables over short time periods
35
(unlike high pressure which can lead to an instantaneous failure) but rather
reflect a combination of varying conditions over a longer time period. Using
the worst case values is therefore not a sensible approach, if a range of more
realistic values can be handled.
In defining a range of likely operating variables such as temperatures and

pressures, the design values will form the maximum for the respective
distributions but lower values should be included. Defining this range will
require inputs from the Process and Reservoir Engineers. Due to the nature
of the uncertainty, such that all values within the range are as likely as each
other, Uniform distributions are probably the most appropriate for these
variables.
The yield strength and wall thickness of linepipe are other examples of the
type of variables that can be treated in this manner. The linepipe properties
are important if using corrosion models to calculate mean time to failure.
Rather than using the minimum values for each, based on the specified
material and the variation allowed within the specification, typical
distributions can be defined for each value. Such variables tend to be
distributed normally around a mean with the specified minimum properties
defining a lower bound.
Non-Linear Many variables in corrosion rate predictions, such as the level of CO2 in the
Relationships gas phase, are based on “best guess” or on limited well test data. No
attempt is made to define the uncertainty in these data and this is a major
limitation of deterministic modelling. In defining the distributions of such
variables, the mean value should be based on the best guess or well test
data in a similar way to the deterministic approach. However, a range of
possible values should be considered. In the absence of any other
information, the distribution of values is likely to be symmetrical around the
mean with the greatest probability associated with values close to the mean.
The Normal distribution is a familiar example of this type and should be
used.
It should be noted that using a symmetrical distribution, such as a Normal

distibution, does not correspond to using a single value equal to the mean
if the variable under consideration has a non-linear relationship with the
outcome. For example, the corrosion rate prediction model used by BP
states that:
36
Corrosion Rate ∞ ( CO 2 partial pressure )

0.67
Therefore, the corrosion rates associated with the CO2 partial pressure values
in the Normal distribution that are greater than the mean value are closer to
the mean corrosion rate than those associated with the values below the
mean CO2 partial pressure. In other words, defining symmetrical
distributions for variables whose influence is described by a power < 1
produces a non-symmetrical distribution of outcomes (predicted corrosion
rates). The mean value of this distribution will be lower than the single value
calculated using the mean of the input variable.
The same applies to all symmetrical distributions, including Uniform

distributions. In the previous section on 'worst case design', the uncertainties
regarding operating temperature and pressure were discussed. In both cases,
Uniform Distributions were used to define the range of possible values. In
corrosion rate modelling, both these inputs have non-linear relationships with
the outcome (predicted corrosion rate). The effect of pressure is moderated
by a fugacity coefficient related to the non-ideality of CO2. Therefore,
considering a range of pressures distributed symmetrically around a mean
value will tend to reduce the predicted corrosion rate.
The effect of temperature on predicted corrosion rates is strongly non-linear.

At higher temperatures, the role of protective corrosion products or scales can
be important. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the effects of these scales
but the bounds of the expected values can be defined using existing models.
One approach would be to use a log normal distribution, defined as follows:
1. The de Waard & Milliams unscaled rate (upper bound),

2. The de Waard & Milliams fully scaled rate (lower bound),
3. A modal value equivalent to the standard BP approach that uses the
scaling temperature to calculate the corrosion rate for all temperatures
above this.
Again, the outcome of considering a range of temperatures symmetrically

distributed around a mean will tend to be a lower corrosion rate estimation
than found by calculating a single value at the mean temperature.
Summary of Inputs Each input into a corrosion rate prediction should be considered and a range
to a Monte Carlo of possible outcomes defined. By consideration of the way in which the
Analysis value may vary in practice, a distribution function can also be defined. This
may have to be done subjectively but the following basic rules offer some
guidance. In the following examples, distributions are shown that have been
used in the Crystal Ball software.
37
1. Where variations would be due to nature, such as the difference in

CO2 levels around the field, a Normal Distribution should be used
with a mean equivalent to the best guess. Figure 7 shows an example
of a Normal Distribution describing the expected variation in CO2
levels, centred around a mean of 5%.
Figure 7: An Example
of a Normal
Distribution for the
concentration of CO 2
in a gas. The Mean
Value is 5 mole% with a
range of 3 to 7 mole%.
38
2. Where an input may vary over a wide range but would be expected to
be skewed around the 'best guess' or predicted value, a Log Normal
Distribution should be used. The effects of high temperature scaling
would be an example of this type of distribution, or the pit depth at
which inhibitors fail to control corrosion. Figure 8 shows the Log
Normal Distribution used to describe the critical pit depth with a modal
value of 8 mm and a range of 5 to 12mm.
of a Log Normal
Distribution describing
the critical pit depth.
39
3. Where a value may occur equally often within the defined range e.g
flowline operating pressure, a Uniform Distribution should be used,
i.e. all values are equally likely to occur. Figure 9 shows how a range
of flowline operating pressures can be described. In this case the
range of 1,000 to 1,200 psi has been used.
of a Uniform
Distribution Describing
the Flowline Operating
Pressure
Table 9 summarises the assumptions used in a recent probabilistic study

into mean time to failure, based on CO2 corrosion risks. As the study
looked at failure mechanisms as well as corrosion rates, some of the factors
apply to the linepipe steel while others apply to the CO2 prediction model.
The 'Standard Value' corresponds to the value that would be used in a
deterministic study. The Table does not attempt to fully define the
distributions in a statistical sense but more information is available from the
authors if required.
40
Table 9: Summary of
Variables Modelled, Component Variable 'Standard Range Used Distribution
the Values that would in study Value'
be Assigned Using a
Standard Approach,
and the Range of Linepipe Wall thickness e.g. 0.75" Mean = 0.75" Normal
Values Used in the SD = 0.01
Example Study Linepipe Yield Stress SMYS Mean = 70 ksi Normal
e.g. 65 ksi SD = 2.5 ksi
Linepipe Flow Stress ---- 1.15 x Yield Stress Normal
Fluids CO2 Content 5 mole% Mean = 5% Normal

SD = 0.72
Fluids Temperature 110oC 85 - 110 oC Uniform

Fluids Pressure 1,200 psi 1,000 - 1,200 psi Uniform
Corrosion Water pH Cormed * Cormed * Normal

model prediction ± 0.25 units
Corrosion Corrosion rate >Rate at scaling Unscaled to Log Normal
model scaling T oC temperature fully scaled
Inhibitor Inhibitor 90% 65 - 95% Log Normal

efficiency availability
Inhibitor Critical pit depth 8 mm 5 - 12 mm Log Normal
efficiency
Inhibitor Inhib. effic. > 0% 0 - 90% Uniform
efficiency critical pit depth
Note * Cormed is a software programme which can predict in-situ pH

values of oilfield brines.
Figure 10 shows the output from a Monte Carlo simulation, using 20,000
iterations to determine the distribution in outcomes (predicted corrosion
rate) due to the variation in inputs detailed above. The most likely corrosion
rate is circa 1 mm/yr. While there is a possibility that higher or lower rates
occur, the probability of such rates decreases the further they are from the
most likely outcome.
41
Figure 10: Typical Forecast: Predicted Corrosion Rates

Outcome of the BP 20,000 Trials Frequency Chart 313 Outliers
Corrosion Rate Model .113 2260
Run Using a
Probabilistic Approach
.085
.057
.028 565
.000 0
0.00 1.13 2.25 3.38 4.50
mm/yr
Effect of Corrosion Inhibitors
This section represents a significant shift from previous BP

recommendations and therefore is covered in some detail.
Applicability of the The guidelines on the reliance to be placed on corrosion inhibitors

Guidelines presented here have been based on experience gained with continuous
injection systems. The success of batch treatments with corrosion inhibitor
is less well documented and generally this approach to corrosion control is
less reliable. These guidelines should therefore not be used when designing
systems that will be protected with batch treatments - this effectively rules
out their use for the majority of downhole applications. Instead, it is
recommended that relevant operational experience with batch treatments is
sought before designing on the basis of batch inhibition. The authors will
be able to assist in sourcing relevant operational experience.
Inhibited Corrosion Previous BP guidelines have dealt with the affect of corrosion inhibitors on
Rates CO2 corrosion by assigning a “corrosion inhibitor efficiency”. This
described the extent to which an inhibitor reduced the predicted rate and a
figure of 85% was originally used, later raised to 90%. This was despite
laboratory observations that showed inhibitors could reduce corrosion rates
by 95% or more. However, it was accepted that in the field, inhibitor is not
delivered at the recommended dose rate for 100% of the time and therefore
a degree of conservatism is necessary when estimating the benefits of
inhibitors.
42
One major limitation with inhibitor efficiencies is that it allows no

consideration of the effects due to increased dose rates or the development
of better chemicals. It is well known that increasing the dose rates of
corrosion inhibitors up to a certain level reduces the corrosion rate. Figure
11 shows the relationship between dose rate of inhibitor and corrosion rate
on corrosion coupons at Prudhoe Bay. Clearly, the inhibitor efficiency is not
a constant value and increasing the inhibitor concentration (or changing the
chemical for a more efficient one) enables lower corrosion rates to be
achieved.
Figure 11: The 100
Improvement in
Performance of a
1/corrosion rate (years per mm)
Corrosion Inhibitor
with Increasing
Concentration
10
1
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Corrosion Inhibitor Concentration - ppm
A second major limitation with using a single value for corrosion inhibitor
efficiencies is that they are unlikely to be constant across the whole range of
field conditions. CO2 corrosion models can handle input values across a
wide range and moderation factors have been developed over the years to
reduce the conservatism due to the extrapolation of the data set used to
develop the model. However, no such moderation factors have been
developed for corrosion inhibitor efficiencies and by applying a blanket
efficiency, it is assumed they are constant across the range of applications.
BP is ‘fortunate’ in having one of the more corrosive fields in Prudhoe Bay.

This field also lends itself to effective corrosion monitoring due to the use of
above-ground flowlines and there is a great deal of data on inhibited
corrosion rates. There is a good relationship between observed corrosion
rate and inhibitor concentration, as shown in Figure 12. In this Figure, the
effect of the increased dose rate of chemical between January 1994 and
September 1996 can be seen in the increased ‘efficiency’ of the chemical,
based on the predicted corrosion rates using BP’s CO2 corrosion rate
prediction model.
43
Figure 12: The

140 99.80%
Relationship Between
Corrosion inhibitor concentration
Corrosion Inhibitor Dose 99.60%
120
Corrosion inhibitor efficiency,
Average Corrosion Inhibitor Concentration - ppm

Rate and Observed defined using BP's model
'Average' Corrosion Inhibitor Efficiency

Efficiency at Prudhoe 99.40%
100
Bay
99.20%
80
99.00%
60
98.80%
40
98.60%
20
98.40%
0 98.20%
Jan-94 May-94 Sep-94 Jan-95 May-95 Sep-95 Jan-96 May-96 Sep-96
Date
In Figure 12 all efficiency values lie within the range 98.6% and 99.7%,
apparently extremely good performance but in January 1994 only 40% of the
flowlines at PBU had ‘acceptable’ rates of corrosion, defined as corrosion
rates under 2 mpy (0.05 mm/yr.) based on corrosion probes - see Figure 13.
The improvement in performance from January 1994 onwards correlates
with the increase in average dose rates shown in Figure 12.
44
Figure 13: Historical Percentage of Production Lines with Corrosion Under Control
Record of Corrosion 100%
2 < CR < 5 CR >5 mpy
Rates in PBU Flowlines 1 < CR < 2 CR < 1 mpy
80% < 2 mpy by Qtr
Showing Improving
60%
Performance Since
January 1994 40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60% Note
Covers 3 phase production
lines >6" in diameter with WLCs
-80% including LDFs, LP, HP and
GHX.
-100%
Jan-90 Jan-91 Jan-92 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96
Prudhoe Bay was constructed before the development of the earlier BP

guidelines on CO2 corrosion, but if their flowlines were to be constructed
today using the same materials and corrosion allowances, it would infer a
corrosion inhibitor efficiency of approximately 98%. As PBU have now
demonstrated that corrosion control of their system is possible it is clear that
inhibitors can be effective under highly corrosive conditions. This in turn
indicates that either:
❍ Higher inhibitor efficiencies can be assumed in more aggressive

conditions, or
❍ Corrosion inhibitor efficiencies are not the correct way to describe the
role of inhibitors in corrosive service.
The former premise does not lend itself to design as it would require a sliding
scale of inhibitor efficiencies and the field data is not available to allow this
to be produced. The latter is the belief of several oil companies who do not
use inhibitor efficiencies, preferring to use a design corrosion rate for
inhibited systems in the range 0.1 to 0.3 mm/year. For mildly corrosive
conditions (~1.0mm/year) the use of an efficiency of 90% generally works
well. However, for highly corrosive conditions (~10mm/year) it would result
in a conservative estimate of the inhibited corrosion rate. This adds weight to
the argument that the role of corrosion inhibitors can not be described by
efficiencies.
45
BP’s data indicate that inhibited corrosion rates of 0.1 mm/year are possible
under optimum conditions of high inhibitor dose rates and optimised
chemicals. This is confirmed with inspection data from PBU where
flowlines which have been effectively inhibited have pipewall corrosion
rates of less than 0.1 mm/yr.
Applications Where In general, inhibitors require free and regular access to the steel surface to
Inhibitors Are Less be effective. Anything that interferes with this will reduce their effectiveness
Than Fully Effective to low or negligible levels. Examples of low or stagnant flow situations are
vessels, instrument and drain piping and tanks. Historically, inhibitors have
not been assumed to work well in these environments and other corrosion
control measures are used, such as coatings and/or cathodic protection.
Inhibitors also perform poorly in low velocity pipework and pipelines,

particularly if the fluids contain solids such as wax, scale or sand. Under
such circumstances, deposits inevitably form at the 6 o’clock position,
preventing transportation of the inhibitor to the metal surface. Flow
velocities below approximately 1.0 m/s should be avoided if inhibitors are
to provide satisfactory protection and this will be critical in lines containing
solids.
The figure of 1.0 m/s is a rule-of-thumb which has been used in the industry
for many years. However, it is now possible to calculate the velocity more
accurately, using an approach developed by the 'Corrosion in Multiphase
Systems Centre' at Ohio University [18]. The work agrees with the rule of
thumb for most black oil systems but allows more accurate quantification if
the minimum velocity is restrictive.
Operating Costs The costs associated with corrosion inhibition are driven by the volume of
Associated With chemical used per annum and the chemical cost. There may be some
Corrosion Inhibition incidental costs associated with the provision and maintenance of injection
equipment but increasingly this is being handled by the chemical suppliers
and is therefore covered by the chemical cost.
In general, inhibitors are most attractive when protecting long lengths of

pipeline while they are rarely cost effective when protecting short runs of
process piping. The dose rates required are dependent on factors such as
liquid throughput, CO2 partial pressure, pH and flow regime. Dose rates are
not dependent on the length of pipeline or pipework being treated and
46
therefore the same operating cost is incurred in protecting 10 metres of

pipework as is required to protect 20 km of flowline. Corrosion resistant
materials are likely to offer lower life cycle costs for pipework while carbon
steel plus inhibition tends to be the cheapest method of constructing and
operating flowlines [19].
Table 10: Dose Rates

of Corrosion Inhibitors Field Dose Rate (ppm)
into Several North Sea Beatrice 40
Export Pipelines, Brae 10
Based on Total Fluid Bruce * 46
Volumes Forties Pipeline * 26
Magnus 20
Miller * 35
Nelson Enterprise * 17
Scott Amerada Hess * 9
AVERAGE 25
Note * - These fields deploy concentrated corrosion inhibitors to improve

logistics offshore. The quoted dose rates correspond to the standard
product, manufactured by the same supplier.
At Prudhoe Bay the field-wide average corrosion inhibitor injection rate is

110 ppm, with maximum rates of 250 ppm in certain flowlines, based on
water production (typical water cuts are 50%). These rates reflect the rapid
corrosion experienced in some PBU flowlines in recent years.
The determination of dosage rates in gas systems is not as straightforward as

for liquid filled lines. The three methods which are commonly used to do
this are:
1. Based on Gas Flow. This is the most commonly used method and a
common rule of thumb is to apply 1 pint of inhibitor to every 1 million
standard cubic feet of gas (1 pint/MMscf). Actual values are found to vary
enormously in the range of 2 and 0.05 pints/MMscf of gas.
2. Based on the Water Content in the Pipe Line. This is the method
favoured by corrosion engineers as it usually indicates a very low
requirement for inhibitor. It is common to assume a dosage of 200 ppm
47
of chemical in the water. This method will often give erroneously low
values, especially when the water content is very low and/or the pipeline
is very long. This is because the volume predicted will be too low to allow
a film to be build up over the entire surface of the pipe.
3. Based on the Formation of a Protective Film. This is probably the

least used method but one whch provides a good check on the values
obtained from the first two methods. Typically it is the volume required
to form a 0.05mil (1 micron) film over the entire internal surface of the
pipe. This volume is then applied continuously on a daily basis. If the
product is to be applied as a batch treatment the volume is increased by
a factor of ten (x10).
In practice it is sensible to do all three calculations and to use the greatest

volume as the starting point. This should hopefully be the most conservative
volume required. Again, highly corrosive duties associated with high
temperatures or CO2 partial pressures will tend to require dose rates
towards the upper end of this scale.
Chemical costs vary from supplier to supplier and may be tied in with the
provision of other services such as corrosion monitoring. However, for the
purposes of life cycle costing a chemical cost of US$8 per US gallon is
reasonable. On this basis, corrosion inhibitor costs 0.84 cents to 8.4 cents
per barrel at inhibitor dose rates of 25 to 250 ppm. There will also be costs
associated with monitoring and inspection. These aspects are beyond the
scope of this document but are covered in detail in ‘SELECTING MATERIALS
FOR WEALTH CREATION: A Material Selection Philosophy Based On Life
Cycle Costs [17].
Predicting the Effectiveness of Corrosion Inhibitors - ‘The Inhibitor

Availability Model’
Due to the limitations of corrosion inhibitor efficiencies as a design tool, the

inhibitor availability model has been adopted. This approach can be used
to define a corrosion allowance as follows:
CAtotal = CAinhibited (x years @ 0.1 mm/yr.) + CAuninhibited (y years @ uninhibited rate)
This approach assumes that the inhibited corrosion rate is unrelated to the
uninhibited corrosivity of the system and all systems can be inhibited to 0.1
mm/year. The approach also acknowledges that corrosion inhibitor is not
available 100% of the time and therefore corrosion will proceed at the
uninhibited rate for some periods.
48
In the context of this model, corrosion inhibitor availability infers the

presence of a suitable corrosion inhibitor at sufficient concentration to reduce
the corrosion rate to 0.1 mm/yr. The factors that lead to inhibitor availability
below 100% are:
❍ Inhibitor injection equipment is not available on Day 1 of operations.

❍ Injection equipment requires maintenance and repairs.
❍ Operators set the dose rate incorrectly.
❍ Chemical is not available when required.
❍ Chemical dose rate is less than optimum. This can be due to a variety of
reasons including lack of response to increases in throughput, or water
cut or sand rate.
❍ Well stimulation fluids such as hydrochloric acid are produced along
with the crude oil and reduce corrosion inhibitor effectiveness.
❍ The corrosion inhibitor injection facilities are used for delivery of other
oilfield chemicals such as demulsifiers or combined products such as
scale and corrosion inhibitors.
❍ Inhibitors are deployed via large bore pipework (instead of via injection
quills) and are not dispersed in the flow stream for some distance,
providing poor protection.
All of these factors and others not listed have lead to less than optimal
delivery of corrosion inhibitor into production equipment in BPX. No asset
is immune to such problems and therefore the maximum inhibitor availability
that should be assumed is 95%. In many instances, a lower availability should
be assumed; see, 'Recommended Values For Use in the Inhibitor Availability
Model, pp 51.'
Words of Caution
Production data from Cusiana shows that their 12 inhibitor injection skids
averaged 99.2 % availability over the second half of 1996, an identical figure
to that generated at a new gas treatment plant in the Middle East. This is
probably close to the maximum that inhibitor injection units can be available,
bearing in mind the requirements for chemical feedstock, power and the
reliability of the pumps. However, this should not be used as a basis for
assuming an inhibitor availability of greater than 95%. Figure 14 shows the
delivery of corrosion inhibitor against the target rate for a North Sea platform.
There was only one instance when the inhibitor injection system was not
delivering chemical - during March 1993 - but there were also only 3 short
periods where the chemical was fully available with respect to the target dose
rate.
49
Figure 14: The

100
Availability of
Corrosion Inhibitor
80
into a Main-Oil-Line
over an 18 Month
60
Period Target = 50ppm
40
20
0
January March May July September November January March May
1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 1994 1994
At the project stage, it is difficult to determine the availability of inhibitor

in future years but relatively easy to ensure inhibitor is available on day
one. The provision of chemical injection equipment is often outside the
scope of EPIC contracts and therefore assets are brought on-stream without
the necessary facilities to inhibit valuable equipment. In previous projects,
this has taken up to 2 years to correct and therefore the best inhibitor
availability that can be achieved will be 90%, assuming a 20 year design
life. If the provision of chemical injection equipment is brought inside the
scope of the EPIC contract, measures can be taken to ensure inhibitor is
available on day 1 of operations.
Achieving good inhibitor availability during operations is partly down to

system design and partly due to management of the changing corrosion
risk. Inhibitor injection systems are simple systems and lend themselves to
high levels of mechanical availability. This can be improved further
through the use of low level warning devices on the storage tanks and dose
rate gauges such as the sight glass or more complicated dose rate
monitoring systems. Together, these two simple measures will help to
ensure that the target dose rate is achieved for a high proportion of the
time.
Ensuring the target dose rate is correct is more difficult and requires that
constant changes to the target are made to reflect changes in production
rate, water cut etc In extreme cases, this may require weekly tailoring of
the target dose rate. This is where corrosion control programmes can fail
and therefore it is important that the materials or corrosion engineer
concentrates on this aspect.
50
Figure 15 shows the feedback loop that is required for effective management
of corrosion using chemicals. As chemical inhibition is the only viable
method for controlling internal corrosion, it is important that the deployment
of chemical receives attention.
Figure 15: The
Feedback Loop that Corrosion Experience from
Models other assets
Must be in Place for
Corrosion Control to
Work Effectively Quantify
Field
experience Risk
CorrOcean FSM
UT mats
Apply Controls Monitor

Effectiveness
Corrosion
Chemical probes
inhibition Intelligent pig
inspections
Recommended Values for Use in the Inhibitor Availability Model
The degree to which a project or asset can rely on corrosion inhibition will
depend heavily on the investment made to ensure satisfactory operation of
the feedback loop in Figure 15. The different approaches to managing this
feedback loop enable five categories to be defined which in turn allow
recommendations to be made on the values used for inhibitor availability.
In all cases, it is recommended that the inhibited corrosion rate is assumed

to be 0.1 mm/yr. The inhibitor availability value will reflect the approach
of an asset to corrosion inhibition. The following categories have been
defined to cover the entire range, based on predicted corrosion rates. Each
asset or project may have equipment corresponding to two or more
categories, as the modelled corrosion rate will vary throughout the facilities.
The categories are summarised below and discussed in detail in the
following sections, starting with the lowest corrosion risk.
51
❍ Category 1 - Benign fluids where corrosion inhibitor usage is not

anticipated. Predicted metal losses should be accommodated by
corrosion allowance alone.
❍ Category 2 - Corrosion inhibitor will probably be required but at the

predicted corrosion rates there will be sufficient time to review the
need for inhibition based on inspection data.
❍ Category 3 - Corrosion inhibition will be required for the majority of

field life but the facilities will not be available from Day 1, limiting the
maximum effectiveness of a corrosion control programme.
❍ Category 4 - Corrosion inhibition is relied on heavily and will be

required for the entire period of operation. Inhibitor must be available
on Day 1 to ensure maximum probability of success for the corrosion
control programme.
❍ Category 5 - Carbon steel and corrosion allowance with corrosion

inhibition is unlikely to provide integrity for the full field life, thereby
requiring repairs or replacements. Should only be considered once
environmental and economic analyses have shown this to be more cost
effective than using corrosion resistant materials - an option of last
resort.
Categories 2 and 4 are illustrated schematically in Figure 16. Categories 1,

3 and 5 can be considered in a similar manner.
52
Figure 16: The

Concept of Inhibitor
Availability in Relation
to Consumption of
Corrosion Allowances
‘Spare CA’ SAFE
UNSAFE
Derating, repair or
replacement required in
Year 10
Cross section of
pipe or vessel on
Day 1
0 Field Life (years) 20
Category 4 - red example:
Uninhibited corrosion continues at high rate for 2 years, when inhibition is

started. However, the inhibitor is incapable reducing the corrosion to a
sufficient degree and de-rating or replacement will be required at Year 10. In
this case, 18 years of inhibition (equivalent to 90% availability) is not
sufficient due to the high rates of uninhibited corrosion in Years 1 and 2. The
availability of inhibitor must be improved to 95% if carbon steel and corrosion
inhibition is to work satisfactorily and therefore the system should be
designated as a Category 4 and designed and operated accordingly.
Category 2 - blue example:
Uninhibited corrosion proceeds at a moderate rate for 10 years, when

inhibition is started. The inhibited rate is low enough to enable full field life
to be reached with corrosion allowance to spare. In this case 10 years of
inhibition, equivalent to 50% availability is satisfactory. This would place this
example in Category 2 as there is ample time to detect corrosion prior to the
implementation of a corrosion control programme.
53
In these examples, once inhibition is initiated in Year 2 or 10, it is shown as

being effective at controlling corrosion at 0.1 mm/yr. for the remaining
period i.e. 100% availability for the remaining period. In practice, this will
not be the case and inhibitor availability will be less than 100% due to the
reasons described pp 49. This would see the lines representing the loss of
corrosion allowance becoming step shaped, corresponding to the periods of
inhibitor availability and non-availability.
Figure 17 provides a pictorial representation of these relationships.
Figure 17: A Pictorial

Knowns Variables
Representation of the
Uninhibited corrosion rate - from model
Relationship between Inhibitor Availability
Corrosion Rates, Design Inhibited corrosion rate = 0.1 mm/yr.
Design life e.g. 20 years Corrosion Allowance
Life, Inhibitor
Availability and
Corrosion Allowance.
In general, decreasing CA: Options:

• Reduces CAPEX
• Increases OPEX Increase CA, decrease availability
• Increases monitoring Decrease CA, increase availability
Risk category determines

requirements for: Outcome
• Corrosion control
• Monitoring Corrosion Risk Category 1 to 5
• Inspection
Velocity limitations relate Fluid Velocity

to inhibited fluids C-factor < 100, no change
C-factor 100-135, + 1 category
Table 11 shows some examples of how the corrosion risk category is

determined.
54
Table 11: Some

Worked example for determining optimum
Examples of how the
corrosion risk category
Corrosion Risk Category
is Determined. Knowns: Variables:
Uninhibited corrosion rate = 2.0 mm/yr. Inhibitor availability = 0 to 95%
Inhibited corrosion rate = 0.1 mm/yr Corrosion allowance = 0 to 8.0 mm
Design life = 20 years
Design as Category 1 System

Inhibitor availability = zero
Corrosion allowance required: (20 x 2.0) + (0 x 0.1) = 40 mm
Not a practical option: corrosion allowance > 8.0 mm

Inhibitor availability = 49%
Corrosion allowance required: (10 x 2.0) + (10 x 0.1) = 21 mm
Not a practical option: corrosion allowance > 8.0 mm

Corrosion allowance required: (2 x 2.0) + (18 x 0.1) = 5.8 mm
Practical option: moderate corrosion allowance and corrosion control,
monitoring and inspection requirements

Corrosion allowance required: (1 x 2.0) + (19 x 0.1) = 3.9 mm
Practical option: minimal corrosion allowance with requirements for elaborate
corrosion control, monitoring and inspection requirements
In this example, the choice is between designing as a Category 3 or 4 system.

Both are practical solutions and the optimum balance for a project will be
determined by the relative cost of the extra 1.9 mm corrosion allowance
required for a Category 3 system compared with the additional costs of the
control, monitoring and inspection incurred with a Category 4 system.
In general, long pipelines will be more cost effective when designed to a

higher category while shorter pipelines or process piping will be more cost
effective as a lower category system.
The workbook provided on the disc with these guidelines contains a

spreadsheet for determining the corrosion risk category of a given system.
55
Designing and Category 1 - Basis of Design

Operating a
Category 1 Assumed inhibitor availability = 0%
Corrosion Control Maximum tolerable uninhibited corrosion rate = 0.4 mm/yr.
System
This approach will be valid for applications where the predicted cumulative
corrosion rate over field life can be accommodated by a corrosion
allowance. In practice, this means a maximum predicted corrosion rate of
0.4 mm/yr., assuming a design life of 20 years and a maximum corrosion
allowance of 8 mm. Longer or shorter design lives will change this rate
accordingly. Corrosion inhibition provides a fallback measure in case the
actual corrosion rate are higher than predicted due to changes in field
conditions or unforeseen circumstances.
Category 1 - Corrosion Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
The fluids must by definition be benign and corrosion rates low. Corrosion
monitoring equipment such as corrosion probes and coupons will respond
slowly to changes in corrosion rates and will be of little practical benefit.
Detection of unexpectedly high corrosion rates remains important as the in-

situ corrosion rates may be higher than predicted. However, rates are
unlikely to exceed the predicted rate by more than a factor of 2 (i.e. 0.8
mm/yr. maximum) and therefore the inspection programme will be capable
of detecting such attack. This can provide an early warning system,
allowing time for implementation of a corrosion control programme if
required. The usual requirements of an inspection programme apply. In
particular, it should anticipate localised corrosion at areas such as welds and
the 6 o’clock position of low flow rate lines.
Category 1 - Corrosion Control System Requirements
As the design of the facilities does not rely on the use of corrosion
inhibition, there is no requirement to incorporate corrosion injection
facilities into the design.

Operating a Category
2 Corrosion Control Assumed inhibitor availability = 50%
System Maximum tolerable uninhibited corrosion rate = 0.7 mm/yr.
56
Category 2 equates to mildly corrosive fluids where the predicted corrosion

rate is too high to be accommodated by corrosion allowance alone but
where corrosion inhibition should not be required for the full field life.
In practice, this approach is only valid for predicted corrosion rates of up to

0.7 mm/yr., again assuming an 8 mm corrosion allowance and 20 design life.
Using a corrosion inhibitor efficiency of 50% infers that approximately 9
years of uninhibited corrosion can be accommodated before 95% reliance
on inhibition must be assumed for the remaining 11 years of a 20 year field
life. This provides time for corrosion to be detected via inspection
programmes.
A design of this type relies heavily on monitoring systems to detect the onset
of corrosion at a rate requiring inhibition. This will require monitoring of
process changes such as temperature, flow velocity and water cut. Direct
corrosion rate monitoring will also be required. However, due to the
relatively low corrosivity of fluids, response from corrosion probes and
coupons may be poor.
Due to the relatively low corrosivities of the fluids, inspection programmes

will also play a vital role in detecting the onset of corrosion. Uninhibited
corrosion losses of half the corrosion allowance over a 3 to 5 year period
will be detectable by inspection techniques and will still enable corrosion
inhibition to reduce rates to acceptable levels over the remaining field life.
Selecting corrosion allowances using the BP model will ensure several years
of corrosion can be accommodated prior to inhibition being required.
The corrosion control system must be capable of being commissioned and

to begin injection as soon as changes in the corrosion rate are detected.
This means that the plant should be designed for inhibitor injection without
recourse to a shutdown. In practice, this will mean that access fittings
should be installed to allow fitment of corrosion inhibitor injection quills at
system pressure. Provision of equipment upstream of the quill such as the
pipework, dosing pumps and storage tanks can be delayed until monitoring
or inspection data show that corrosion inhibition is required.
57

Operating a Assumed inhibitor availability = 90%
Category 3 Maximum tolerable uninhibited corrosion rate = 3 mm/yr.
Corrosion Control
System This category equates to projects or assets that require corrosion inhibition
for almost the full life of the field but do not include the specification and
provision of corrosion control and monitoring facilities into the overall
project scope for use on Day 1 of operations. In practice, this may mean
that corrosion control equipment is not on site and commissioned for 12
months or more and therefore the reliance that can be placed on inhibition
is less than 95%. A delay of 12 months means that corrosion inhibitor
availability must average 95% over the remaining 19 years to achieve an
overall availability of 90%. This limits the maximum predicted corrosion rate
that can be successfully accommodated to 3.1 mm/yr., assuming a corrosion
allowance of 8 mm and a 20 year design life.
A facility in this category will have a predicted corrosion rate of 0.7 to 3.1
mm/yr. Failure of the corrosion control programme can lead to failure in
under 3 years if the corrosion allowance is selected in accordance with the
guidelines. Reliance on the corrosion control programme is therefore high,
particularly as it will not be present on Day 1 of operations. The corrosion
monitoring system must be capable of detecting changes in corrosion rates
within weeks if the target rate of inhibitor injection is to be constantly
revised to ensure the overall availability of 90% is achieved. The
recommended techniques that are capable of providing such resolution are
ultrasonic mats and the CorrOcean FSM.
It is recognised that the corrosion control system will not be available on

Day 1 of operations. However, it must be capable of being commissioned
without recourse to a shutdown. In practice, this will mean that access
fittings should be installed to allow fitment of corrosion inhibitor injection
quills at system pressure. The corrosion inhibitor should have been pre-
selected and the initial dose rate should be based on either laboratory trials
or similar operating experience elsewhere.
Provision of equipment upstream of the quill such as the pipework, dosing

pumps and storage tanks should also be planned during the design phase
to unsure there is adequate deck space and power supplies to enable the
58
system to be commissioned quickly once it arrives. The system should

incorporate dose rate meters and low level warning devices on the storage
tank.

Operating a
Category 4 Assumed inhibitor availability = 95%
Corrosion Control Maximum tolerable uninhibited corrosion rate = 6 mm/yr.
System
This category applies to equipment that require corrosion inhibition to be
present for the full design life of the field to ensure satisfactory integrity from
carbon steel equipment. The reliance on corrosion inhibition is high and a
failure could occur in a little over 1 year if the corrosion control programme
fails. To achieve inhibitor availability of 95%, the corrosion control system
must be operational on Day 1. To ensure this happens, it is recommended
that the provision of the control system is brought within the scope of the
overall project.
A facility in this category will be handling highly corrosive fluids and the
corrosion control programme will require constant optimisation to ensure the
corrosion allowance is not consumed prematurely. This may require dose
rates of chemicals to be checked on a weekly basis and the sensitivity of
corrosion monitoring devices must reflect this. The recommended techniques
that are capable of providing such resolution are ultrasonic mats and the
CorrOcean FSM.
The corrosion control system must be commissioned and working on Day 1

of production. The corrosion inhibitor should have been pre-selected and
the initial dose rate should be based on either laboratory trials or similar
operating experience elsewhere. The system should incorporate dose rate
meters and low level warning devices on the storage tank.

Operating a
Category 5 Assumed inhibitor availability > 95%
Corrosion Control Uninhibited corrosion rate > 6.0 mm/yr.
System
This category of corrosion risk is beyond BP’s recommended practice.
Predicted corrosion rates beyond 6 mm/yr should not generally be handled
59
through a combination of carbon steel with corrosion allowance and

corrosion inhibition. Instead, corrosion resistant materials should be
considered.
There will always be specific cases where corrosion resistant materials are
not feasible or where previous operating experience indicates that carbon
steel will corrode at a lower rate than indicated by the model. However, the
risks involved in operating such a system are high and repairs or
replacement of equipment should be expected during the field life. This is
unlikely to be cost effective when lost production costs and potential
environmental damage are considered and these areas must be addressed if
such highly corrosive fluids are to be handled or transported using carbon
steel.
Assuming the technical, environmental and financial factors of operating a

carbon steel facility of this type have been considered and answered
satisfactorily, the monitoring requirements will be similar to those for a
Category 4 system.
Assuming the technical, environmental and financial factors of operating a

carbon steel facility of this type have been considered and answered
satisfactorily, the control system requirements will be similar to those for a
Category 4 system.
Table 12 summarises the recommendations made in respect of each

category. Table 12 also classifies when an intelligent pig inspection should
be carried out for the various corrosion risk categories. These classifications
are described on page 52. These can be scheduled by a variety of means,
depending on the amount of information available for the system. If there
is extensive process and corrosion monitoring data together with extensive
operational experience of the system, it may be possible to schedule
inspections based on gathered data i.e. using ER probe data as a trigger.
However, until experience and confidence are gathered corrosion modelling
offers the best method. The reliance on monitoring and inspection is greater
for Categories 5, 4 and 3 than for Categories 2 and 1 and therefore
inspection should occur earlier in the field’s life.
60
Table 12: Summary Corrosion control system Monitoring requirements,

of Criteria and requirements based on location
Requirements for
Corrosion Inhibitor Corrosion Assumed System System Scheduling 1st On land, On land, Subsea
Corrosion Risk Risk availability rate (max) dose rate availability sophistication inspection above Ground buried
Categories 0 to 4
Category 1 Zero 0.4 mm/yr. 0 ppm None required No requirement Routine inspection Process monitoring Process monitoring Process monitoring
Standard inspection Standard inspection Standard inspection
techniques techniques techniques
Category 2 50% 0.7 mm/yr. 20 ppm Should be No special Routine inspection As Category 1 plus As Category 1 plus As Category 1 plus
capable of requirement weight loss coupon weight loss coupon weight loss coupon
commissioning ER probes ER probes ER probes
w/o plant shut- Intelligent pig run Intelligent pig run Intelligen pig run
Category 3 90% 3 mm/yr. 50 ppm Should be Should Early inspection As Category 2 plus As Category 2 plus As Category 2 plus
included in basis incorporate low regular inspection of FSM or UT mat FSM or UT mat
of design and level device and bends, welds etc system system
commissioned as flow monitor in Continual data Continual data Continual data
soon as practical injection package logging for probes logging for all logging for all
monitoring devices monitoring devices
Category 4 95% 6 mm/yr. 100 ppm Should be within Should include Early inspection As Category 3 plus As Category 3 plus As Category 3 plus
scope of overall low level device increased inspection increased inspection increased inspection
project and and flow monitor frequency frequency frequency
available from in injection
Day 1 package
Category 5 > 95% >6 mm/yr. 300 ppm Should be within Should include Early inspection As Category 4 As Category 4 As Category 4
scope of overall low level device plus leak plus leak
project and and flow monitor detection detection
available from in injection
Day 1 package
61
Comparisons of the - The aim of the inhibitor availability model is to encompass the good track
Inhibitor Availability record of the inhibitor efficiency model at low to moderate corrosivities but
Model with BP’s to remove some of its conservatism in more corrosive systems. The two
Previous Model inputs to the model are the inhibited corrosion rate and the inhibitor
availability and using different values for these can produce a whole array
of outputs.
20
Figure 18: A
Inhibitor availability model based
Recommended Corrosion Allowance
18 Efficiency method based

Comparison Between on inhibited rate of 0.1 mm/yr on efficiency of 90%
and availability of 95%
for 20 year design life - mm
the Inhibitor Efficiency 16
and Inhibitor 14 Corrosion allowance - efficiency method

Corrosion allowance - availability method
Availability Methods of 12
Determining 10
Corrosion Allowances 11.9
8 20.0
6
4 10.0 6.9
6.0 4.9
2 4.0 3.9
1.0 2.4 2.0 2.9
0
0.5 1 2 3 5 10
Predicted Corrosion Rate - mm/yr.
Figure 18 shows the corrosion allowance that would be recommended

using the two approaches for a 20 year design life. A range of uninhibited
corrosion rates are considered, from 0.5 to 10 mm/yr. which covers the
range from mildly to highly corrosive fluids (less corrosive fluids would
probably be handled without recourse to inhibition). In the inhibitor
efficiency example, an efficiency of 90% has been assumed, in line with
BP’s previous practice. The inhibitor availability model uses an inhibited
corrosion rate of 0.1 mm/yr. and an inhibitor availability of 95%. During
the remaining 5% of the time, the uninhibited corrosion rate is used (0.5 to
10.0 mm/yr. as appropriate).
Both models agree well for moderately corrosive fluids, while for mildly
corrosive fluids (0.5 to 1.0 mm/yr.) the availability approach recommends a
greater corrosion allowance. In practice, this may not be important as
external corrosion may require a corrosion allowance of up to 2 mm and
would over-ride the allowance recommended for internal corrosion.
62
For highly corrosive fluids, the availability model recommends lower

corrosion allowances than the efficiency model. This agrees well with the
observed ‘high efficiencies’ of corrosion inhibitor under highly corrosive
conditions. This will increase the use of carbon steel as the standard
practice is to specify carbon steel with corrosion allowances up to 8mm and
to use corrosion resistant steels for more corrosive fluids.
Figure 19 shows the relationship between predicted corrosion rate and the
recommended corrosion allowance using the inhibitor availability method.
The example shown is the same as in Figure 18 with predicted corrosion
rates in the range 0.5 to 10 mm/yr. In each case, the corrosion allowance
for inhibited corrosion is constant at 1.9 mm due to the assumption of an
inhibited corrosion rate of 0.1 mm/yr. and the required field life of 20 years.
The variation in recommended corrosion allowances is due entirely to the
5% of the time where inhibition is assumed to not occur.
12
Figure 19: The Corrosion allowance for uninhibited corrosion
Allowance for 20 Year design
Recommended Corrosion
Contribution to the 10
Corrosion allowance for inhibited corrosion (95%
Total Recommended
availability)
Corrosion Allowance 8
life - mm
from the Inhibited and

10
Uninhibited Portions of 6
the Inhibitor Availability
Model 4 5
3
2
2 0.5 1
1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

0
0.5 1 2 3 5 10
Predicted Corrosion Rate - mm/yr

Figure 19 helps to illustrate how important the period of uninhibited
corrosion can be. In a severe case of a predicted corrosion rate of 10
mm/yr., the uninhibited period of 5% of the time accounts for 83% of the
corrosion allowance. In this case, each 1% increase in the assumed
availability of corrosion would reduce the total corrosion allowance by
16.6%. Table 13 gives some more details on this point.
63
Table 13: The Effect

Predicted CA assuming CA assuming % reduction in
of the Assumed
Corrosion 95% inhibitor 96% inhibitor corrosion allowance
Corrosion Inhibitor
Rate availability availability per 1% increase in
Availability on the
mm/yr.. mm mm inhibitor availability
Recommended
Corrosion Allowance 0.5 2.4 2.3 3.3 %
for a 20 year Design 1 2.9 2.7 6.2 %
Life 2 3.9 3.5 9.7 %
3 4.9 4.3 11.8 %
5 6.9 5.9 14.2 %
10 11.9 9.9 16.6 %
It can be seen that highly corrosive systems must assume a high value
for the inhibitor availability if carbon steel is to be used with a practical
corrosion allowance.
Corrosion Rates of Low Alloy Steels
The corrosion rate prediction model presented here is for use with carbon
steels, i.e. predominantly iron with low levels of carbon. However, some
engineering materials contain a wider range of alloying elements such as
chromium and nickel to improve the mechanical properties, such as strength
or toughness. Such elements are commonly found in corrosion resistant
materials and chromium in particular can increase the corrosion resistance
of carbon steels, if present in sufficient concentration. 13% of chromium
turns a carbon steel into a stainless steel, with excellent resistance to CO2
corrosion.
Many claims have been made over the past 5 years of the affect of adding
low levels of chromium (0.5 to 1.0%) to carbon steel. Some steel suppliers
claim that 0.5%Cr can halve the CO2 corrosion rate and certainly in some
tests there does appear to be a benefit. The most consistent benefit seems
to be an improved resistance to ‘mesa’ corrosion where large, square edged
and flat bottomed pits can form. However, in other tests no benefits have
been observed and it seems that the benefits may be related to
microstructure rather than composition. Other researchers and oil
companies have reported that inhibitors perform worse on low alloy steels
than on carbon steel and therefore, in inhibited systems, there is no benefit
from the addition of low levels of chromium.
64
On balance, BP believe there are no proven advantages or disadvantages in

terms of CO2 corrosion resistance from the presence of chromium at
concentrations up to 1% in steels. It is therefore recommended that no
account is taken of the presence of alloying elements at low levels and no
premium should be paid for such steels. However, if the steel supplier uses
low levels of chromium in the standard product, that is acceptable.
Preferential Weld Corrosion
Preferential weld corrosion is a problem in most systems and production

systems containing CO2 are no exception. Efforts have been made to
eliminate preferential weld corrosion by alloying welding consumables with
various elements such as chromium, nickel and copper at low levels (circa
1%). No universal solution has been found and there are examples of either
weld metal or heat affected zone (HAZ) suffering preferential attack with
most welding consumables and welding procedures. The problem is not
made easier by the fact that the mechanism for preferential weld corrosion
is not fully understood in CO2 service. The speed of such corrosion
suggests there could be a galvanic driving force.
Even in ‘benign’ systems where predicted rates of general corrosion are low,
rates of attack at welds can be unacceptably high. This causes a problem
when deciding whether a corrosion inhibitor is required for a particular
application. The traditional approach has been to calculate cumulative wall
losses over the life of the field using corrosion models and if the predicted
wall loss is less than the available corrosion allowance, inhibitors have not
been specified. However, preferential weld corrosion can proceed at rates
far higher than predicted and inhibitors offer the only proven method of
improving the reliability of carbon steel in such cases. There have recently
been cases of preferential weld corrosion causing rapid failures in systems
believed to be only mildly corrosive.
Unfortunately, there can be no clear guidance for such systems but

inspection programmes should recognise the risk of preferential weld attack
and, if detected, corrosion inhibition should be initiated immediately.
65
Effect of Pitting
CO2 models are basically ‘bare surface’ models with moderation factors
applied to anything that affects this, such as surface scales and corrosion
inhibitors. Moderation factors are used to reduce the predicted corrosion rate
due to the presence of protective or semi-protective species at the surface.
In other words, all such factors predict that the surface will corrode at a lower
rate than would be expected if it was fully exposed to the bulk solution.
Pits are one case where local corrosion rates may be higher than if the surface
was exposed to the bulk solution. The environment at a corroding steel
surface is different from that in the bulk due to the continual transport of
reactants to the surface and products from the surface and this is reflected in
the CO2 models and associated factors. These effects are generally beneficial
where the corrosion process is transport controlled but can be detrimental
where it is the transport of inhibitor that is limited. This can be the case in a
corrosion pit where galvanic affects also play an important role. The result
is that the growth rate of deep pits may accelerate. This can be seen as a
loss of control by the inhibitor and may place a practical limit on the size of
the corrosion allowance. For example, if an inhibitor is incapable of
protecting pits deeper than 8mm, once pitting has reached this depth the
corrosion rate in the pit will proceed at the uninhibited rate, i.e. 10 or 20
times faster than the bare surface rate. The increase in life due to the
provision of corrosion allowance beyond 8 mm would therefore be minor.
In practice, the relationship between pit depth and inhibitor efficiency is not
fully understood. Field experience indicates that pits below 5 mm behave
normally while pits deeper than this may corrode at a higher rate. Pitting
rates up to 3 times faster than predicted have been quoted in a variety of
systems. Certainly, if corrosion has reached 8 mm it is likely that the local
environment within a pit will be significantly divorced from the bulk
environment and hence transportation of inhibitor may be unreliable.
Moreover, if corrosion has caused such metal loss, the corrosion control of
the system must be poor and providing extra steel is unlikely to provide a
satisfactory answer.
As corrosion allowance is often consumed via pitting or localised corrosion

the importance of pits should be considered when selecting the optimum
corrosion allowance.
66
Choosing an Optimum Corrosion Allowance
The term corrosion allowance creates the impression of a uniform wastage

over time leading to the gradual and controlled reduction in wall thickness.
In practice, this is unlikely to be the case and the role of the corrosion
allowance is to provide protection against the periods when corrosion
control is poor and short term corrosion rates are high, i.e. poor inhibitor
availability in the case of inhibited systems. As there is always uncertainty
in the rate of corrosion (and therefore time to failure), specifying a corrosion
allowance is a compromise between capital costs and reliability. Greater
corrosion allowances incur greater costs but confer greater reliability. For
mildly corrosive systems, low corrosion allowances of 1.5 to 3 mm are
justified as they are protecting against the possibility of internal and external
corrosion. In highly corrosive systems, active corrosion is almost certain to
occur and therefore greater corrosion allowances should be specified to
increase the mean time to failure.
Some Operators specify maximum corrosion allowances and BP has tended

to use the figure of 8 mm for some years. The reasons for this are:
1. Corrosion tends to be localised pitting attack and corrosion inhibitors

perform poorly in deep pits. Therefore, extra corrosion allowance
provides little benefit beyond approximately 8mm.
2. Carbon steel will not provide a long term solution for highly corrosive
systems and if several millimetres of corrosion allowance have been
lost, corrosion control of the system has not been achieved.
3. Intelligent pigs are sensitive to corrosion damage of circa 10% of wall
thickness. This makes it difficult to detect the onset of corrosion in
thick walled pipe which in turn means that corrosion may continue for
some time before detection. It is preferable to detect corrosion early
and remedy the situation and therefore thin walled pipe is preferable
for detection of corrosion.
4. Welding and handling thick walled pipe is difficult and thick sections
may require post weld heat treatment. Cost increases are therefore
greater than the incremental increase in wall thickness.
The figure of 8mm should not be seen as fixed. Each project may have
different drivers in terms of the optimum balance between opex and capex
costs and in certain cases, replacement of flowlines may be more
67
economically attractive than high capital costs in Year 1. For one recent BPX
project it was decided that localised corrosion was the main concern for the
flowlines and therefore the definition of corrosion allowance should reflect
this. BP’s first pass defect assessment criterion for pipelines allows 20% of
the pressure containing wall to be lost due to localised corrosion and the
design of the corrosion allowance took this into account. This approach
reduced the corrosion allowance by circa 1.5 mm and saved US$1.16 million
from the cost of the flowline network. In effect, the ‘traditional’ corrosion
allowance was reduced from 8 mm to 6.5 mm but as the corrosion was
expected to be localised, there would be 8mm of pipewall available for
localised corrosion before raising any concern over integrity.
In other cases, a corrosion allowance greater than 8mm may be justified

but it should be recognised that the additional costs may not be reflected
in the incremental increase in reliability.
Use of Common Sense
In specifying a corrosion allowance, the Materials Engineer should not be

too pedantic. Projects often define three or more nominal corrosion
allowances such as 1.5 mm, 3 mm and 8 mm. Process streams are
categorised as mildly corrosive, corrosive or highly corrosive using models
or experience and the appropriate corrosion allowance added to the
pressure containing wall thickness defined using the appropriate code. The
total required wall thickness is then reviewed against the available wall
thicknesses with the next greater thickness being selected. It may be the
case that the corrosion allowance just takes the total wall thickness out of
one wall thickness range and into another, increasing significantly the wall
thickness and the effective corrosion allowance.
Example
The linepipe specification API 5L lists wall thicknesses (WT) in 1.6 mm

increments for 16” linepipe in the range 12.7mm to 14.3mm. If the total
required WT including 6 mm corrosion allowance is 12.8mm, standard
practice would be to select the 14.3 mm size. The ‘excess’ 1.5 mm would
add circaUS$11,500/km to the cost of the 16” flowline i.e. in excess of US$1
million for a 100km line. As the selection of the nominal corrosion
68
allowance is based on imprecise models, the Materials and Pipeline

Engineers should use their judgement in the selection of the final wall
thickness. They may decide that a corrosion allowance of 5.9 mm is
acceptable, allowing the 12.7 mm WT linepipe to be specified.
Applying Models to Different Flow Regimes
Effect of Water Cut CO2 predictive models - such as the one in this report - are based on
laboratory studies, typically developed in water only systems. Various
moderation factors have been applied over the years, reducing the predicted
rates as experience showed them to be too conservative in their basic forms.
In the approach covered here, the water cut is ignored thereby treating the
pipeline or process equipment as if it was transporting 100% water. It may
appear a large step to apply a model developed using laboratory data in
water only systems to the field where hydrocarbons account for the majority
of the throughput.
Figure 20: The 0.1 - 13 m/s

Water only... 20 - 90oC
Application of a Model 0.3 - 20 bara CO2
Developed in Water-
(0.1 m/s, 90oC,
Only Systems to Other >6.5 bara CO2
excluded!!)
Water-Containing
Systems
Gas / Water Multiphase
Oil / Water
However, this is not the vast over-simplification it may seem. Water wetting
of the pipewall can occur at both high and low water cuts. This is despite
the widely shown plot, reproduced in Figure 21 in which a relationship is
proposed between water cut and corrosion rate based on water wetting.
This relationship is not reliable in practise because water cuts below 1%
have been known to cause rapid failures. This simply reflects the fact that
69
the average corrosion rate in a system is rarely of interest: it is the maximum

rate that determines time to failure. If at a water cut of 1%, 1% of the
equipment is water wet 100% of the time then clearly there will be no effect
of water cut on the maximum potential corrosion rate and hence time to
failure.
Figure 21: An Often

Presented Relationship
Between Water Cut 1
and Corrosion Rate

III
Corrosion Rate
II
I
0
0 100
Water Cut, %
Hilly terrain, changes in elevation or changes in flow direction can induce

water hold-up in wells, flowlines and process equipment. Local water cuts
can exceed 50% despite input water cuts of 1% or less. The water in dips
may remain for weeks or months until an increase in throughput sweeps
some of it out and a temporary increase in water production is seen at the
outlet of the system. It is therefore unwise to rely on the formation of
emulsions or similar dispersions to provide fully oil wet surfaces. It is for
this reason that BP ignores the water cut in determining system corrosivity.
Effect of Flow CO2 corrosion rates are dependent on flow regime and flow velocity, hence
Regime the attempt to incorporate the effects of flow into the 1995 de Waard and
Milliams model. In uninhibited corrosion, flow effects are of secondary
importance, after the important controlling factors such as temperature,
pressure, CO2 concentration and pH and for this reason BP have retained
the earlier de Waard and Milliams model as the basis for their CO2
modelling. The 1995 model is included if the sensitivity to flow velocity
changes are considered important.
70
Figure 22: Different

Flow Regimes Liquid Flowrate
Experienced at Various
Combinations of Gas
Flowrate and Liquid
Flowrate
Bubble
Slug Annular
Stratified Stratified Wavy
Gas Flowrate
Each flow regime will cause different rates of corrosion under otherwise
identical conditions and the 1995 de Waard and Milliams model offers the
best method of assessing this.
When considering inhibited corrosion rates under multiphase flow, the

approach proposed on pp76 should be followed. In summary, velocities
corresponding to C factors below 100 require no special consideration.
Velocities corresponding to C factors between 100 and 135 raise the
Category of the corrosion risk, e.g. from 3 to 4. Velocities corresponding to
C factors greater than 135 should not be considered unless there is
significant operating experience to justify this.
71
Applying Models to Transportation Equipment
Crude Oil Export Pipelines
Crude oil transport pipelines or main oil lines (MOL) fall into two categories:
1. The fully stabilised type such as the Trans Alaskan Pipeline System
and OCENSA in Colombia.
2. The partially stabilised type, such as Forties and Beatrice MOLs.
The corrosivity of the fluids is different in each case and pipelines should
be designed and operated accordingly.
Fully Stabilised In the case of fully stabilised lines, the crude oil is processed down to
Crude Oil Export atmospheric pressure and may remain in tanks for some period prior to
Pipelines shipping. This allows water cuts to reach levels of 0.1 to 1.0%. It also
allows the acid gases present in the reservoir to vent and reach very low
concentrations. For example, the effective partial pressure of CO2 in an
associated gas containing 2 mole% CO2 is only 0.3 psia at atmospheric
pressure. The low levels of acid gases mean the potential corrosivity of the
water phase will be low.
Fully stabilised crude oil can therefore be considered as a non-corrosive

product and typically such pipelines are constructed with minimal or zero
corrosion allowance. When a corrosion allowance is specified, it is often
due to concerns over external corrosion rather than internal attack.
Corrosion inhibitor is not normally deployed into fully stabilised crude oil
lines.
Partially Stabilised In the partially stabilised case, the crude oil is partially stabilised (typically
Crude Oil Export offshore) and exported for final processing at a remote location (typically
Pipelines onshore). The crude oil in the export pipeline therefore remains corrosive
as the acid gases are not vented down to negligible levels and any
associated water will be corrosive. The partial pressure of gases will depend
on the pressure of final processing. For example, at 7 bara the partial
pressure of CO2 in an associated gas containing 2 mole% would be 0.14
bara, or 2 psia.
72
Final processing pressures vary. Forties fluids are processed down to 4.5 bara
while the value on Bruce is 12 bara and Brae is 16 bara. The ‘typical’ range
is from 1.4 bara to 20 bara and the corrosivity of the fluids will vary
accordingly, along with the CO2 concentrations, temperatures etc.
As the crude oil does not pass through tankage offshore, water cuts in
partially stabilised lines are typically higher than in fully stabilised lines.
Water cuts can reach 15% or even higher if water handling is a constraint but
more typical levels are around 1%.
With the removal of the majority of the CO2 and water, partially stabilised
crude oil is significantly less corrosive than the non-stabilised multiphase
fluids transported in flowlines, but it can not be considered as non-corrosive.
The original Forties 30” and existing Beatrice export lines are adequate proof
that partially stabilised crude oil is corrosive. Such pipelines should therefore
be designed and operated to deal with internal corrosion. Typically a
corrosion allowance of 2 to 3 mm may be specified and corrosion inhibitor
should be added on a continuous basis.
It is important to note that although the pressure of the oil is raised

downstream of the crude oil shipping pumps, the partial pressure of CO2
does not increase. The crude oil is single phase and any remaining
associated gas is in solution - see page 11.
Ideally, the velocity should be maintained above 1 m/s - see page 46.
Natural Gas Pipelines
Dry Gas Pipelines To minimise or eliminate the risk of corrosion in gas pipelines it has been
(and still is) common practice to dry it prior to transportation. The two most
common methods involve either contacting the wet gas with dry glycol or
passing it through molecular sieves.
The target water content of the 'dried' gas is usually 2lbs of water for every
million standard cubic feed of gas (2lbs/MMscf).
However, both methods have their problems as shown by Figure 23 which

shows the water content of a dry gas downstream of the glycol contactors.
73
Figure 23: The Actual 0.25
Water Content of a 'Dry Specification

2 lbs/mmscf
Gas' Downstream of the
0.20
Glycol Contactors Over
a 2 Year Period. The
Design Specification 0.15
Probability
was 2lbs/MMscf.
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Water Content - lbs/mmscf
The data was gathered from a BP Asset over a two year period and it is clear
that the target value of 2lbs/MMscf was rarely achieved.
Thus some care should be taken when relying on the drying of gas for
corrosion control and each system should be considered on a case by case
basis.
Wet Gas Pipelines As part of the drive to minimum offshore processing, gas transportation lines
are increasingly being designed to operate wet i.e. the gas either enters the
pipeline below its water dew-point or will drop below this temperature at
some location along the pipeline. Once free water is present, corrosion
becomes a concern and this must be taken into account during the design
and operational phases of the pipeline’s life. The severity of corrosion and
the potential means for controlling it depend on the operating scenario and
flow regimes.
Corrosion Inhibitor If a wet gas pipeline is not going to be treated with a recycled hydrate
Deployment in Wet inhibitor, corrosion inhibition is the only practical corrosion control method.
Gas Pipelines The approach to design is identical to that for oil pipelines except that there
is no pH buffering capacity in the condensed water in wet gas lines. This
must be taken into account when performing the corrosion rate predictions.
If the flow regime is stratified or wavy, there may be a concern that

corrosion inhibitor deployed into the continuous phase at the bottom of the
pipe does not get transported to the top of line location. The corrosion
processes occurring at the two locations are different as the transportation
74
of water to, and subsequent removal of corrosion products from the top of
line location is limited by the quantities of condensing water. There is no
continuous water phase at this location in stratified/wavy flow and water is
only present via condensation on to the pipewall. Under these
circumstances, the water quickly becomes saturated with corrosion
products, effectively stifling further corrosion and this can be used to
advantage in the design of wet gas pipelines.
The term top of line/bottom of line (TOL/BOL) ratio is used to describe the
rate at which the top of line corrodes relative to the bottom of line, with the
bottom of line rate being calculated using a standard CO2 modelling
approach. A TOL/BOL ratio of 0.1 is used by BP. This does not rely on
inhibitor availability and can therefore be assumed to occur 100% of the
time. The bottom of line location requires inhibition and the predicted rate
estimated using the availability model. The higher of the two rates will
determine the required corrosion allowance.
Corrosion Inhibitor Glycol (or methanol) is often used as the hydrate preventer on a recycled
and Glycol basis, although this traditional approach to hydrate control is increasingly
Deployment in Wet being replaced by once through, low dose systems. However, recycled
Gas Pipelines systems will remain valid for older systems or those operating well within
the hydrate envelope where low dose chemicals are not applicable. The use
of glycol is beneficial as it is a corrosion inhibitor, albeit a relatively poor
one. If glycol is used without the addition of corrosion inhibitor, there will
be some benefit from the glycol. This is hard to quantify but Shell’s work
produced a glycol correction factor which is described on page 25.
However, if glycol and inhibitor are both used there will be little additional
benefit from the glycol and it should be ignored for design purposes. Only
the inhibitor availability factor should be used.
The use of a glycol (or methanol) recycling system offers the opportunity
for an alternative form of corrosion control - pH moderation. This technique
has been used by Elf since the 1970’s and works by artificially raising the
pH of the water in the pipeline to high values (circa 6.0). This limits or
arrests CO2 corrosion and therefore the pipeline can be constructed with
reduced corrosion allowance. The system is economical to operate as the
pH moderator, typically bicarbonate or MDEA is carried in the glycol and
remains through the glycol drying process. However, the technique should
only be used along with corrosion inhibition as pH moderation is not
entirely successful at preventing localised corrosion. In effect, pH
moderation expands the application of carbon steel to more aggressive
environments i.e. hotter and/or higher CO2 partial pressures.
75
However, the technique has some drawbacks:
1. pH moderation relies on the existence of glycol recycling to provide

the transport medium and to recycle the pH moderator. With the
modern trend towards once-through, low dose hydrate inhibitors
many new wet gas pipelines will not have glycol recycling facilities.
Once-through dosing of pH moderator is unlikely to be economic as
2,500 ppm bicarbonate or 500 ppm MDEA may be required in the
water phase to achieve the required pH shift. MDEA costs circa US$4
per kg and therefore treating condensed water would cost circa 30
cents per barrel on a once through basis.
2. If formation water is produced along with the gas then the artificially
high pH will increase the scaling tendency of the water. This can have
serious consequences and may require the termination of the pH
moderation programme.
Multiphase Flowlines
Multiphase flowlines are the most arduous application for corrosion

inhibitors. This mode of transporting fluids is set to increase further in BP
with the development of long reach tie-backs to existing platforms and large
developments on land such as Colombia and Algeria. Flowlines are an
arduous application for corrosion inhibitors for two main reasons:
1. The fluids are unstabilised and therefore contain acid gases such as
CO2 at high partial pressures, along with water. In contrast, export
pipelines transport more benign fluids that have had the bulk of such
corrodents removed.
2. The flow regimes in multiphase flowlines vary widely and the

velocities and attendant liquid forces can reach high levels. This
increases uninhibited corrosion rates and increases the concentration
of inhibitor required to achieve acceptably low corrosion rates.
Very low velocities are also a concern and the ‘optimum’ mean velocity for
such flowlines is believed to lie between 1 and 10 m/s. Below this velocity
range, water drops out and deposits can accumulate at the 6 o’clock
position, preventing inhibitor reaching the pipewall - see page 46.
76
Corrosion inhibitors are not effective under such circumstances, particularly

if there are solids or bacteria in the line and therefore corrosion rates are
increased.
Corrosion rates can be controlled above 10 m/s, but at higher operating

costs. Figure 24 gives a graphical representation of the affects of flow
velocity on inhibited CO2 corrosion rates.
Figure 24: A
Graphical 1
Representation of the
Effect of Flow Velocity
Effect of
Corrosion Risk
on Inhibited CO2 increasing [CI]

corrosion.
High risk of water drop
and under-deposit
corrosion
0
0 5 10 15 20
Flow Velocity - m/s
Figure 24 is only a qualitative representation and velocity is not the only

criterion controlling the flow element of CO2 corrosion. Mixture density is
also important, with denser fluids giving rise to higher corrosion rates.
Higher velocities can therefore be tolerated in systems with high GORs than
in similar systems with low GORs. It is often convenient to design using C-
factors, defined in API RP 14E because the erosional velocity is often the
limiting velocity for flowlines. Although C-factors specifically relate to
erosion and not corrosion they usefully represent the forces acting on the
pipewall and therefore the forces causing enhanced corrosion rates. For
carbon steel, BP use a C factor = 135.
C
MaximumFlow Velocity =
Mixture density
..where maximum flow velocity is in ft/s and mixture density is in lb/ft3.
77
The relationship between flow and corrosion rate will be unique for each
system and will be difficult to estimate at the design stage. However, the
designer should accept that high velocities increase the risk of high
corrosion rates and should design accordingly. The level and sophistication
of corrosion control and monitoring systems must reflect the potential for
corrosion to occur and this in turn will depend heavily of the flow regime.
This should be handled using the approach developed for Inhibitor
Availability, based on categories 1 to 5. The impact of flow velocities
corresponding the C factors > 100 can be considered as an increase in risk
and the category defined on the bais of predicted corrosion rates changed
accordingly - see Table 14.
Table 14: The Impact C Factor

of High Fluid Velocities <100 100 to 135 >135
on the Categorisation of
Corrosion Risk
Design No change + 1 Category No
Operation Yes + 1 Category Possibly1
Note that operating at C factors > 135 should only be considered where
there is sufficient operational experience in the asset to confidently state that
erosion or corrosion are not occurring at unacceptable rates at C=135. C
factors > 135 should not be used during design but may be considered as a
de-bottlenecking measure if successful experience has been gained.
'Successful experience' is likely to require several years of operation with at
least one intelligent pig inspection of the flowline after operating at close to
C = 135.
78
Intelligence Pigging Guideline
Within BP, there are no fixed policies on the frequency of intelligence pig
surveys (IPS) of pipelines and each individual case should be examined on
merit. It is important to note that intelligence pigging surveys are just one
element of a toolbox for the management of pipeline integrity. They are
complementary to the full range of other pipeline integrity and monitoring
techniques, for example, wall thickness checks, corrosion coupons and
corrosion inhibitor injection monitoring. It is recommended that pipelines
at risk of corrosion are designed to be “piggable”, with the requirement for
permanent pig traps being determined according to the required frequency
for operational pigging and intelligence pigging.
For any pipeline, the need for, and frequency of inspection depends on a
number of factors:
❍ the known or anticipated corrosion risk (which this document deals

with);
❍ the sensitivity of the inspection tools available to detect the
anticipated defect types;
❍ the corrosion allowance and whether the pipeline can be accessed
for repairs;
❍ the environmental risk;
❍ local pipeline regulations;
❍ the strategic importance of the pipeline and the associated political
environment;
There are three main types of pipeline inspections which may be

categorised as follows:
❍ A Baseline Survey;
❍ an Early Inspection; and
❍ a Routine Survey.
Baseline Survey A Baseline Survey is carried out prior to pipeline commissioning, with the
principal objective of detecting material defects and construction anomalies.
Baseline surveys are primarily intended to detect dents, or wrinkles, and so
geometry pigs are normally used (e.g. caliper device), these pigs are not
normally considered to be intelligence pigs.
79
BP would not generally recommend a baseline intelligence pig survey for

pipelines. It is normally considered that the pipeline hydrotest is a sufficient
demonstration of the pipelines’ initial fitness for service. A true baseline
intelligence pig survey may be required for pipelines transporting highly
sour fluids, where there is some doubt over the steel’s ability to resist HIC.
In these circumstances it may be justified to inspect for initial laminations in
the pipeline steel. Such laminations may grow or blister during operation,
and so a baseline measurement of such features can prove useful in
assessing the integrity of the pipeline in later life. BP has not found it
necessary to carry out a baseline IPS in any of its pipelines. However, there
is increasing pressure on the assets from regulators to carry out such
inspections. A normally satisfactory compromise is the Early Inspection.
Early Inspection An Early Inspection would be carried out 1 - 3 years after commissioning.
The objective of this survey is to verify the absence of corrosion in a
pipeline where a new corrosion prevention strategy is being implemented,
or when the operating conditions are particularly severe. In the context of
this document, pipelines in corrosion categories 4 and 5 would certainly
warrant an early inspection. The case for a category 3 pipeline having an
early inspection should also be considered.
An early inspection is similar to a baseline inspection, but it is carried out

after some operating life has been accumulated. The objective of an early
inspection is to confirm that the corrosion management philosophy is
operating satisfactorily before any significant damage occurs to the pipeline.
For example, an early inspection of the Miller Gas System (sour with high
CO2) was carried out after approximately 1 year of operation and this
confirmed satisfactory corrosion management performance. The data from
an early survey can be used later in the pipeline’s life to provide information
on when the damage was initiated.
Routine Survey A routine inspection is carried out to confirm the on-going integrity of a
pipeline which has a known corrosion risk. Clearly, the frequency of this
inspection will vary from pipeline to pipeline. This survey is used to
monitor known defects or confirm the absence of significant corrosion.
Pipelines in corrosion categories 1 to 5 should all be considered for routine
surveys.
80
When To Inspect Where it is feasible, it is recommended that a caliper inspection is carried

a Pipeline out on each new pipeline during the commissioning procedure. This will
confirm the good workmanship of the pipeline and remove concern about
dents in the pipeline. Dents can pass hydrotest, but fail by fatigue later
during the life of the line.
New Pipelines Baseline intelligence pig surveys are not generally recommended.
To determine when to first inspect a new pipeline, it is necessary to consider

the corrosion risk and the uncertainty in prediction of the corrosion rate.
Three simple principles can be used to determine when to carry out the first
pig inspection:
❍ It should not be before a time when one would expect to detect

some corrosion if the corrosion rate is in line with the pessimistic
estimate;
❍ It should be before our pessimistic estimate of when the first failure
may occur;
❍ It should be before we expect widespread corrosion to occur, which
would result in major repair programme.
To quantify this timing, the pipeline operator can apply a number of

methods of increasing sophistication, reliability calculations are suited to this
type of assessment. However, as a first pass the following simple method
is recommended:
Make an estimate of the most likely and the pessimistic corrosion rates.
These should be based on the corrosion model described here, taking in to
account the influence of corrosion inhibitors (if applicable) and the likely
effectiveness of the inhibitors. The probabilistic approach to corrosion
monitoring can be helpful here, taking the P50 and P90 (or P10) corrosion
rates as the most likely and pessimistic rates.
The first inspection should not be before….

Calculate the time taken for the pessimistic corrosion rate to reach 1mm in
depth or the detection threshold of the inspection tool being used (typically
10% of nominal wall thickness). Use the greater time period as the earliest
recommended inspection time.
81
The first inspection should not be after….

Calculate the retiral thickness of the pipeline according to the ruling pipeline
design code - the “code thickness”.
Calculate the tolerance of the pipeline to “long” corrosion defects. For

pipelines operating at 72% SMYS, the BP Guidelines for the assessment of
corroded pipe allow a further 20% loss of the Code thickness (BP's
"Transmission Pipelines to BS8010", 1st June 1992). The “BP 1st Pass”
thickness is normally calculated as 0.8 * code thickness.
Calculate:
❍ the time that the pessimistic corrosion rate will reach the BP 1st Pass
Thickness,
❍ half the time that the best guess corrosion rate will reach the BP 1st
Pass Thickness.
The earliest of these dates is the latest intelligence pig inspection date.
The procedure is shown pictorially in Figures 25 and 26.

Figure 25: A Pictorial Corrosion Levels Wall Thicknesses
Representation of how
Nominal
to Determine the
Detection Level SAFE
Timing of a Pig Design Code
Allowance
Inspection Run. Actual
SAFE
BP 1st Pass
Allowance best “long”
UNSAFE estimate
Failure
Point Rupture
pessimistic
estimate
FAILURE
0 time
earliest latest widespread
inspection inspection corrosion expected
date date (1) (divide time by two)
82
Figure 26: A First

Pass Method for Calculate the most likely and worst case corrosion rates
Determining the (P50 and P90 rates if using the probabilistic corrosion model)
Timing of the First
Intelligence Pig
Inspection. Determine the retiral wall
Determine when the most 4 thickness using BP’s 1st pass
1 likely rate leads method for long defects
to wall losses > 10%
Calculate when the worst
5 case rate means the retiral
limit will be reached
Determine when the most

2 likely rate leads
to wall losses of 1 mm Calculate when the most
6 likely rate means half the
retiral limit will be reached
3 Take the greater of the times Take the lesser of the times
calculated in Steps 1 and 2 7 calculated in Steps 5 and 6
This is the earliest This is the latest

date for inspection date for inspection
The actual inspection date chosen should fall between these limits. The
final selection of date will depend the factors outlined above i.e.
❍ the known or anticipated corrosion risk;

❍ the sensitivity of the inspection tools available to detect the
anticipated defect types;
❍ the corrosion allowance and whether the pipeline can be accessed
for repairs;
❍ the environmental risk;
❍ local pipeline regulations;
❍ the strategic importance of the pipeline and the associated political
environment;
83
Repeat Inspection A similar method is used to determine the minimum inspection interval for
Intervals pipelines without a severe corrosion problem. The relatively low accuracy
of even the high resolution intelligence pigs compared with other NDT
techniques, means that pigs are not well suited to the measurement of
corrosion rate. Statistical techniques have been applied to pig inspection
results. However these will result in a high degree of uncertainty in
measured corrosion rate unless there is a reasonable period of time between
inspections.
For example, the time to the next intelligence pig inspection survey could
be determined as follows. If the defects identified in the early survey are
indeed corrosion defects, then one should carry out the next inspection
when the predicted growth exceeds the tool’s ability to confidently measure
differences in wall thickness. If an inspection tool has an accuracy of 10%
of pipewall thickness then the inspection should be carried out when the
estimated total loss in wall thickness due to corrosion has exceeded:
√2 x 10%
i.e. 14.1%, which is equivalent to 1.8 mm on a 12.7 mm thick line.
The reason for this is that the error in the measurement of corrosion (a
differences in wall thickness) is approximately √2 times the error in each
wall thickness measurement.
For pipelines with significant corrosion, the timing of the next inspection
depends on when it is anticipated that the corrosion depth will reach a
"retiral" limit. For onshore pipelines, the owner has the opportunity to carry
out local inspections and repairs at relatively low cost. In this instance, an
inspection programme can be put in place to monitor a number of the
severest defects in order to judge when repair / replacement / derating is
necessary. This point monitoring may be used to reduce the required
frequency of IPS. For offshore pipelines with significant corrosion, where
inspection and repair is costly, there will be a tendency to carry out IPS
more frequently than outlined above. It should be understood that
inspections carried out more frequently than the minimum recommended
frequency may not be able to generate reliable corrosion rate data. In these
instances only with careful consideration, should forecasts of pipeline
integrity be made from pit depth changes from inspection to inspection. In
order to avoid over-pessimism in forecasts it is important to consider other
sources of information on possible corrosion rates (e.g. corrosion model
predictions / experiments; topsides inspection results).
84
Typical Inspection For oil transmission pipelines, where fluid corrosivity is being monitored on
Intervals a routine basis, the pipeline is in a reasonable condition and thought to be
at low risk, a frequency of once every 5 years would be typical. Examples
of this are the new Forties MOL and the existing Ninian MOL, which are both
subsea lines in the North Sea. When a good corrosion management track
record has been established, assets are tending to increase this interval. For
significantly corroded pipelines, where the pipeline is nearing the end of its
life, inspections may be carried out as often as annually.
For dry gas pipeline systems that are tightly controlled, inspections would be
carried out after indications of potential problems from other sources:
topsides corrosion, failure to meet dew point spec, water carry over into the
pipeline etc. For example, BP has operated a dry gas pipeline (Gyda field in
Norway) since 1986, without yet requiring an intelligence pig inspection,
because of the low risk of internal corrosion in this pipeline.
For more information on this topic contact Will McDonald ( Sunbury x4014 )
or Jim Corbally ( Sunbury x2774 ) of the SPR Transportation Team.
85
Applying Models to Process Equipment
Crude Oil As stabilisation trains take fluids from the flowlines, they will naturally
Stabilisation Trains benefit from the injection of any corrosion inhibitors upstream to protect the
flowlines. However, there are locations within the stabilisation units where
inhibitors will not work well and alternative means of corrosion control
should be employed. Inhibitors rarely work well under low velocity or
stagnant conditions, such as at the base of separators, tanks or in instrument
bridles. Deposits can form in such locations preventing inhibitors getting to
the metal surface. This becomes relevant at velocities below 1 m/s and
either internal coatings and anodes (vessels, tanks) or stainless steel piping
(instrument bridles) should be used. Carbon steel is suitable for drain lines,
downstream of an isolation valve.
Gas Compression Gas compression systems fall into two categories; wet gas compression and
Systems dry gas compression. Some systems are wholly wet gas, such as Pedernales,
Venezuela and the Long Term Test facility at Cusiana, Colombia. The
majority of systems are wet up to an intermediate stage of compression at
which point the gas is dried, normally in glycol contactors at approximately
500 psi. Once the gas is dried, corrosion is not a major concern and a
minimal corrosion allowance is normally specified to account for periods
when gas dryers operate off-specification or for external corrosion.
In wet systems, corrosion will occur whenever the gas falls below its water
dew-point. This can be predicted using flowsheet simulation packages such
as Genesis but there are some general guidelines which make the task more
straight forward.
Pipework The gas entering a compressor will have come from either a vessel or knock
Downstream of out pot. The gas will therefore be in equilibrium with water and hydrocarbon
Compressors liquids and there should be zero or negligible liquids present. The action of
compressing the gas will heat it, raising it above the dew-point and thereby
removing any traces of liquid water. The pipework downstream of
compressors is therefore not at risk from internal corrosion and a moderate
corrosion allowance (1 - 2mm) will suffice to account for external corrosion.
The exception is small bore instrument tappings where the gas may cool to
below its dew-point, causing corrosion. Greater corrosion allowances or
stainless steels should be used in these locations.
86
Wet Gas Coolers Gas is typically cooled between each stage of compression. Downstream of
compressors, liquid water will not re-appear until the gas is cooled to below
its dew-point. This will occur some way into the cooler. If the cooler has
carbon steel tubes it is worth calculating the temperature at which this will
occur as the site of water condensation can be the location of worst case
corrosion and will therefore determine the life of the coolers. As the
following example, in Table 15 from one BPX asset shows, the dew-point
temperature can be closer to the gas exit temperature than the entry
temperature. If the entry temperature had been used for the corrosion rate
predictions, they would have been unnecessarily conservative.
Table 15: Operating

Conditions and 1st Stage 2nd Stage 3rd Stage 4th Stage
Corresponding Discharge Discharge Discharge Discharge
Corrosion Rates for Cooler Cooler C ooler Cooler
Discharge Coolers
Temperature - in 243oF 240oF 222oF 226oF
Temperature - out 110oF 110oF 110oF 110oF
Pressure 220 psig 567 psig 1334 psig 3310 psig
CO2 content 0.2 mole% 0.2 mole% 0.2 mole% 0.2 mole%
PCO2 0.44 psia 1.13 psia 2.68 psia 6.63 psia
pH range 4.65 - 4.95 4.47 to 4.75 4.32 to 4.55 4.21 to 4.38
Water dew point 147oF 144oF 136oF 132oF

Water content 737 lb./MMscf 299 lb./MMscf 124 lb./MMscf 64 lb./MMscf
Tube size 1" x 16g 5/8" x 16g 3/4" x 16g 5/8" x 16g
Wall thickness 1.5 mm 1.5 mm 1.5 mm 2.75 mm
Pred. Corr. Rate 0.5 mm/yr. 0.9 mm/yr. 1.16 mm/yr. 1.6 mm/yr.
Inhib. Corr. Rate 0.05 mm/yr. 0.09 mm/yr. 0.1 mm/yr. 0.2 mm/yr.
87
Carbon steel is rarely a good choice for the tubes of coolers in wet gas
service for the following reasons:
1. The equipment is critical as it handles flammable gas at high

pressure within the facilities.
2. The thermal requirements of the cooler exclude the use of significant

corrosion allowances and therefore coolers typically have thin walled
tubes.
3. The high gas velocities and highly turbulent flow regimes mean
corrosion inhibitors are unlikely to work well.
4. Inhibitor may need injecting downstream of each compressor as it may

be ‘lost’ with the liquids at each knock out pot, making inhibitors
uneconomic.
5. On-line inspection of the tubes of airfin coolers is difficult.
More suitable materials for the tubes include 316L, duplex or super duplex
stainless steels. If necessary, carbon steel can be used for the tube sheets
to reduce costs with a suitable corrosion allowance incorporated.
Glycol Contactors Glycol contactors are an example of equipment that, on the face of it, may
suffer excessive internal corrosion due to the combination of gas below its
dew-point, high pressures and carbon steel construction. However,
operating experience has shown this to not be the case as the large volumes
of glycol effectively absorb the water and inhibit corrosion. Carbon steel is
therefore a satisfactory material of construction although many projects go
to the expense of internal coatings, such as epoxy phenolics, particularly for
the lower sections.
Although corrosion inhibitors are supplied to control corrosion in glycol

contactors, their benefit is not quantified or proven. However, the control of
the pH of the water/glycol moisture is important and chemicals
(neutralisers) are available for this. During operation the pH of the fluid is
reduced by the build up of organic acids. These result from the degradation
and hydrolysis of the glycol during the heated, regeneration stage.
88
Flow Velocities in Process Pipework
The 1995 de Waard & Milliams corrosion rate prediction model relies heavily
on the use of flow velocities to predict corrosion rates. If this model is used,
guidance is required on typical velocities. The design guidelines used for the
Project, or actual throughput rates and internal pipe sizes are the best sources
of such information. If this information is not available then the following
information can be used as it details typical limiting velocities used during the
design of process pipework.
This information is taken from two recent design guidelines used by Process
Engineers for sizing of process pipework. They deal with maximum
velocities and can therefore be used as worst case. Pipe sizes are based on
several criteria, including the requirements to avoid vibration, deposition of
solids, excessive pressure drop and erosion.
Flow Velocities in ‘Single phase liquid lines’ refers to pipework where system pressure is forcing
Single Phase Liquid liquid from higher pressure vessels to lower pressure vessels, drains or
Lines tankage. It does not refer to the suction or discharge of pumps.
Maximum velocity = 5.0 m/s, with excursions up to 9 m/s.
Flow should not exceed 5.0 m/s and should not be less than 1 m/s. The
lower limit is to avoid deposition of solids. More detailed guidelines are
summarised below. They are only to be applied to clean fluids - allowable
velocities shall be reduced if solids are present.
Table 16: Maximum

Nominal line size Maximum Velocity (m/s)
Velocities in Single
Phase Liquid Lines
Process liquid general 5 9
Hydrocarbon headers 5 9
Hydrocarbon branches 5 9
Water & water solutions 3.5 9
Liquid to reboiler 1.25 -
Side stream drawoff 1.25 3
Gravity flow 1 2.5
Refrigerant lines 0.6 1.25
89
Flow Velocities in The flow velocity in pumped liquid lines is strongly dependent on pump
Pumped Liquid Lines type and line size. Centrifugal pumps and large line sizes can handle higher
liquid velocities than reciprocating pumps and small line sizes. If the pump
type is unknown, it is safer to assume a centrifugal pump for the purposes
of corrosion rate calculations.
If the line size is not known, the following velocity range can be used. If
the line size is known, Tables 17 and 18 give more information.
Centrifugal Pumps
Suction 1 to 2.4 m/s
Discharge 1.8 to 5.5 m/s, excursions up to 9 m/s.
Reciprocating Pumps
Suction 0.3 to 0.6 m/s
Discharge 1 to 1.8 m/s
Table 17: Maximum
Velocities in Lines to Service Max. Velocity m/s Max. Velocity m/s
and from Centrifugal Normal Limit
Pumps
Suction Discharge
up to 3" 1 1.8
4" 1.4 2.4
6" 1.5 3
8" 1.8 4.3
10" 2.1 4.9
12" 2.4 5.5
Table 18: Maximum Speed RPM Maximum Velocity (m/s)

Velocities in Lines to
and from Reciprocating
Pumps Suction Discharge
up to 250 0.6 1.8
251-330 0.5 1.4
over 330 0.3 1
90
Flow Velocities in In multiphase lines, use the limiting velocity defined by API RP 14E. BP use
Multiphase Lines a C factor of 135 for carbon steel - see p77. Velocities should not exceed 75%
of the 'critical flow velocity'. Critical flow in multiphase systems is analogous
to sonic flow in single phase systems.
Flow Velocities in A general limit of 18 m/s is applied to gas piping to avoid pipe vibrations.
Vapour or Gas Lines Compressor surge/recycle lines, relief valve inlets etc may operate at
substantially higher velocities - see Table 19. However, pipework to and from
reciprocating compressors typically has a lower velocity limit of 12 m/s.
Table 19: Vapour Line

Sizing Criteria Service Velocity m/s
< 15 psia (vacuum) 61 to 152

0 - 100 psig 46 to 61
100 to 500 psig 30 to 46
500 to 2000 psig 30 to 38
Flare 0.5 to 0.8 Mach
In general, vapour piping is sized in terms of pressure drop, rather than

maximum velocities.
91
Economic Tools To Use During Materials Selection
Corrosion modelling will give a good indication of the probability of failure

of equipment in service due to internal conditions but will not help in
determining the economic consequences of such a failure or the operating
costs involved with avoiding or managing such a failure. Even if corrosion
models predict short times to failure, it may be economic to plan for
replacement or repair of carbon steel equipment late in field life rather than
to invest in a more robust solution on Day 1. Alternatively, inhibitors may
be a technically feasible solution for process pipework but economically and
logistically, protecting large numbers of short lengths of pipework may be
impractical and corrosion resistant materials may be a better choice.
The technique of life cycle costing (LCC, also known as whole life costing)
helps in this assessment by converting future costs into current monetary
value and thereby allowing direct comparisons with capital costs. To carry
out accurate, meaningful and useful LCC’s the Materials or Project Engineer
must have:
1. An understanding of the economic factors driving the decision, such

as discount rates, rates of return on investment and net present values.
2. The design life and production profile of the development.
3. An assessment of future costs based on similar developments over
several years.
4. An understanding of the important economic drivers for the Project,
such as the balance between capital and operating costs. This in turn
will be determined by the economic terms under which the licence
was awarded.
Gathering the necessary data for accurate LCCs is a major task and a
guideline document is available [17].
In some cases, the cost of materials are relatively minor and the costs of
installation far outweigh them. Expensive sub-sea wells are an obvious
example of where workovers are to be avoided due to a materials failure.
In such cases it is common to select robust materials in order to protect
against a repeat of the high installation costs but there are many examples
where the answer is less clear cut. The key question is, “when is investment
in corrosion resistant materials justified?”
92
Corrosion models clearly have an input to this but can not provide the
complete answer. Corrosion models are normally used as a materials
selection tool and taking an extreme example, if there were no consequences
of a failure there would be no justification in investing in corrosion resistant
materials. An investment in corrosion resistant alloys (CRAs) aims to protect
against the consequences of a failure and therefore materials selection must
consider the consequences in the decision making process. Consequences
may include economic, health, safety or environmental impacts or all four but
in most cases all consequences can be related to a financial impact.
Example:
A flowline is to transport corrosive fluids from a remote well-site to the

processing facilities. The route includes a major river which provides local
communities with water for consumption and agriculture. The river crossing
requires directional drilling and is therefore expensive. The material selected
for the majority of the flowline is carbon steel with a suitable corrosion
allowance but it is recognised that localised failures and repairs may be
required late in field life.
What material should be used for the river crossing? The decision can not be
based solely on the corrosivity of the fluids as the consequences of a failure
under the river crossing is clearly far greater than a similar failure on land. A
method of evaluating the consequences of such a failure is required and from
this a method for determining how much it is worth investing on Day 1 to
prevent a failure several years later.
The Expected Value technique does this and is covered in detail in ref 17.
The technique quantifies what has been done subjectively for many years:
materials selection becomes more conservative as the consequences of a
failure increase. This is the main reason corrosion resistant materials are used
more extensively downhole and sub-sea than on land - it is not the fluids
that are significantly different but the economic drivers.
Table 20: Categories

Location/Equipment Materials Cost Material
of Equipment,
Type as % Selection
Classified by the
of Whole
Proportion of
Materials Cost to
Total Installation Cost Subsea wells < 3% Most conservative
Land wells / sub-sea flowlines ~ 10%
Flowline road / river crossings ~25%
Buried land lines ~ 30%
Surface running land lines > 30% Least conservative
93
The expected value technique is represented graphically in Figure 27. It

assesses the economic costs and benefits of two or more choices. In
assessing each option, the technique allows for the possibility of failure and
a probability is assigned to each outcome (failure or no failure).
Probabilities of failure will be higher for a carbon steel system than for an
equivalent CRA system and corrosion modelling helps to determine this.
The costs of each outcome consist of :
❍ Capital costs (no failure case)
❍ A combination of capital and operating costs
❍ The above plus repair or replacement costs
For fair comparison, the costs are converted to present day values (NPVs).
The costs associated with each outcome are multiplied by their probability
to produce the estimated value.
Figure 27: Expected No Failure

Value Technique 99% NPV Cost = $1.0
Install CRA EV for CRA
river crossing $1.31 million
(0.99 x 1) + (0.01 x 25.23)
Failure
1% NPV Cost = $1.0+$0.48+$23.75
= $25.23
Which river crossing material ? Choose lowest EV

i.e. CRA river crossing
No Failure
80% NPV Cost = $0.6
EV for C-steel
Install C-Steel
$5.85 million
river crossing (0.8 x 0.6) + (0.2 x 24.64)
Failure
20%
NPV Cost = $0.6+$0.29+$23.75
= $24.64
94
References
1. C de Waard, U Lotz, D E Milliams, "Predictive Model for CO2

Corrosion Engineering in Wet Natural Gas Pipelines", Corrosion, 47
(1991) 976
2. C de Waard, U Lotz, "Prediction of CO2 Corrosion of Carbon Steel",

NACE Corrosion 93, New Orleans, paper 69
3. C de Waard, U Lotz, A Dugstad, "Influence of Liquid Flow Velocity on

CO2 Corrosion : A Semi-Empirical Model", NACE Corrosion 95,
Orlando, paper 128
4. C de Waard, D E Milliams, "Carbonic Acid Corrosion of Steel",

Corrosion, 31 (1975) 177
5. R H Newton, "Activity Co-efficients of Gases", Industrial and

Engineering Chemistry, March 1935, 302-306
6. L W Jones, "Corrosion and Water Technology", OGCI Publications,

Tulsa, USA, 1988, p14-15
7. J G Stark, H G Wallace, "Chemistry Data Book", J Murray Ltd,

London, 1978, p 60-61
8. I R McCracken, C G Osborne, D Harrop, "Carbon Dioxide and

Corrosion in Forties", Sunbury Report No PEB/122/89, dated
December 1989
9. J E Oddo, M B Tomson, "Simplified Calculation of CaCO3 Saturation

at High Temperatures and Pressures in Brine Solutions", J of
Petroleum Technology, 34 (1982) 1583
10. L A Rogers, M B Tomson, "Saturation Index Predicts Brine's Scale-

Forming Tendency", Oil and Gas Journal, April 1 1985, p 97
11. R G Chapman, "pH Models for Corrosion Rate Predictions", Sunbury

Report No POB/025/96, dated June 1996
12. M J J Simon Thomas, P B Herbert, "CO2 Corrosion in Gas Production

Wells: Correlation of Prediction and Field Experience", NACE
Corrosion 95, Orlando, paper 121
95
REFERENCES
13. J J Carroll, J D Slupsky, A E Mather, "The Solubility of Carbon

Dioxide in Water at Low Pressure", J Phys Chem Ref Data, 20 (1991)
1201 - 1209
14. A J Ellis, R M Golding, "The Solubility of Carbon Dioxide above

100°C in Water and in Sodium Chloride Solutions", Amer J of Sci.,
261 (1963) 47-60
15. S Takenouchi, G C Kennedy, "The Solubility of Carbon Dioxide in

NaCl Solutions at High Temperatures and Pressures", Amer J of Sci,
263 (1965) 445 - 454
16. S D Malinin, "Thermodynamics of the H2O - CO2 System",

Geochemistry International, 10 (1974) 1060 - 1085
17. D M E Paisley, "Selecting Materials for Wealth Creation: A Materials

Selection Philosophy based on Life Cycle Costs", BP Sunbury Report
No. ESR.97.ER.005, 10th Jnauary 1997
18. D Vedapuri "Studies on Oil-Water Flow in Inclined Systems" April

1997 Progress Report, Section 9. Ohio University Multiphase Flow
and Corrosion Project.
19. A J McMahon and S Groves, "Corrosion Inhibitor Guidelines: A

Practical Guide to the Selection and Deployment of Corrosion
Inhibitors in Oil and Gas Production Facilities", BP Sunbury Report
No. ESR.95.ER.050, April 1995
96
Installation of the Cassandra 98 Excel
Workbook
Description
The Cassandra 98 work book was written in Microsoft Excel for Windows
95, version 7.0a. It may not run in earlier versions of Excel.
Automatic Installation
If for any reason this does not succeed, try the ‘Manual Installation’
procedure described below.
1. Insert the disc into the disc drive

2. Click on the ‘Start’ button
3. Click on the ‘Run…’ option
4. Using the ‘Browse’ feature select A:\Install.Exe
5. In the ‘Run’ window click on ‘OK’
6. Follow the Instructions.
Once complete the work book should be opened using the following
sequence:
1. Start
2. Programs
3. Cassandra
4. Cassandra 98
The first time the work book is used the message ‘ This document contains
Links’ will appear. Click ‘No’ to this.
Continue at step 5 in the ‘Manual Installation’ procedure described below.
If not already present, the automatic installation will create the following
folders with files in them:
1. C:\Xlph
2. C:\Data\Cassandra
3. C:\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Cassandra
In addition it will place the file Xlph.ini in the root directory ( c:\ )
97
INSTALLATION OF THE CASSANDRA 98 EXCEL WORKBOOK
Manual Installation
In the root directory of the disc there is a folder called ‘Files’. This folder
contains two files ( Cassandra 98.xls and Xlph.ini ) and a folder
( Xlph ) in the root directory. The Xlph folder contains seven folders:
1. Phreeqe.dat
2. Readme.doc
3. Xlph.inf
4. Xlph.out
5. Xlph.xla
6. xlph.xla
7. Xlphdemo.xls
It is suggested that these instructions are visible during loading so that

they can be referred to easily during the loading process. The instructions
must be followed precisely to ensure that the installation is successful. It
is suggested that ‘Windows Explorer’ or ‘File Manager’ be used for sections
1 to 3 below.
Installation 1. Copy the Xlph folder into the root directory of the C: drive. This
should give the following structure:
1. C:\Xlph\Phreeqe.dat
2. C:\Xlph\Readme.doc
3. C:\Xlph\Xlph.inf
4. C:\Xlph\Xlph.out
5. C:\Xlph\Xlph.xla
6. C:\Xlph\xlph.xla
7. C:\Xlph\Xlphdemo.xls
2. Copy the Xlph.ini file into the root directory of the C: drive to give
C:\Xlph.ini
3. Copy the Cassandra 98 file to your preferred location such as the
Desktop, the root directory or another folder. For example:
C:\Cassandra 98.xls
4. Start Excel
5. On the Menu bar click ‘Tools’.
6. On the drop down menu click ‘Add-Ins…’.
7. In the ‘Add-Ins’ box click on ‘Browse…’.
8. In the ‘Look in’ box select (C:).
9. Select the ‘xlph’ folder and click ‘Open’.
10. Select the ‘Xlph.xla’ file and click ‘OK’.
11. In the ‘Add-Ins’ box click on ‘OK’.
12. If not already open, ‘Open’ the Cassandra 98.xls file.
98

Corrosion Prediction Modelling

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corrosion Prediction Modelling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corrosion Prediction Modelling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corrosion

Sunbury Report No. ESR.96.ER.066

"Cassandra 98" Corrosion Prediction Spreadsheet

The Use of Corrosion Prediction Models During Design

Installation of the Cassandra 98 Excel Workbook 97

The first section introduces a new prediction spreadsheet called Cassandra

Since this subject is continually changing it is anticipated that these guidelines

Carbon dioxide corrosion represents the greatest risk to the integrity of

Installed Costs for

Carbon steel 8mm ca Carbon steel, no ca

Similar relative costs are incurred when specifying corrosion resistant

Figure 2: The Feedback

This document sets out BP’s approach to the quantification of CO2

The quantification of corrosion risk is required at several stages during an

The new guidelines also consider the probabilistic approach to predicting

The Cassandra 98 spreadsheet is written in a simple and accessible format

This section gives enough information to allow experienced modellers to

Table 1: Input Parameter Comments Units Cell

Table 3: Output Parameter Cell Comments

LIMITATIONS OF CORROSION PREDICTION MODELS

The use of simple equations and the precision of the spreadsheet

P <200 bar not defined

- 0.1 m/s excluded

- 3.1, 8.5, 13 m/s flow velocity

APPLYING THE MODEL TO DIFFERENT FIELD SITUATIONS

Table 5: Applying the Field Situation Recommended Approach

Liquid/Gas use hydraulic diameter (see p 21)

Water/Oil use pipe diameter and total liquid velocity

Water/Oil/Gas use a specialist multiphase program to calculate the

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE SPREADSHEET

There may be occasions when it is helpful to apply parts of the Cassandra

For a probabilistic calculation using "CRYSTAL BALL", set up a normal

pCO2 pCO 2 ...partial pressure of CO2 (bara) OUTPUT cell F9

where Tr is reduced temperature (dimensionless)

where Pr is reduced pressure (dimensionless)

%H2S %H 2 S...H2S in gas (mole%, which is same as v/v%) INPUT cell M8

It is by lowering the solution pH that H2S can potentially increase the

An alternative approximate approach for handling the presence of H2S is to

pH2S pH2S ...partial pressure of H2S (bar) OUTPUT cell M9

where KH is Henry's constant (bar/mole fraction)

The salt-correction procedure first calculates the Henry's constant used by

where KH is Henry's constant (mole/ltr bar)

where K H is Henry's constant (bar/mole fraction)

The true Henry's constant is a function of both salinity and temperature

Therefore, the salt-correction factor, Fsalt, is,

Brine pH pH...brine pH control parameter INPUT cell F17

❍ "d" or "D" will accept the De Waard distilled water pH

❍ "o" or "O" will accept the Oddo & Tomson brine pH

❍ "x" or "X" will accept the BP XLpH calculated value.

The accepted value is displayed in cell F21 for confirmation.

When doing a probabilistic calculation using CRYSTAL BALL then a numeric

Equation (8) from the 1995 paper...

pH(CO2) = 3.82 + 0.000384 T - 0.5 log10 (fCO2)

An empirical equation from reference 9...

+0.000000458 (T * 9/5 * 32)2 - 0.0000307 (P * 14.5)...

pH of 0.5 M NaCl / 300 ppm NaHCO3, 1 bar CO2, 25 oC plus...

no acetate 6.8 mM Na acetate 6.8 mM acetic acid

Accepted pH accepted pH ...confirmation of selected pH OUTPUT cell F21