Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment for a Heavy Oil Offshore Pipeline

P. Puente, Senior Consultant, Scandpower P.T.; J. Canon, Consultant, Scandpower P.T.

Abstract
Transportation of hydrocarbons and associated liquids using pipeline systems is a complex operation requiring large
investments and operational capital. Maintaining pipeline systems in a safe manner is an endeavor which includes owners,
operators and regulators. The development of an appropriate Integrity Management Plan (IMP) is required to assure safety
and economic operation. This paper will address some important aspects related to Direct Assessment (DA) tools. The topic
to be covered will be Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA). Also, it will be discussed a detailed ICDA assessment of a
oil pipeline system using a transient mechanistic thee phase simulation model. Understanding where internal corrosion will
occur; what caused the corrosion to occur and how to align mitigation strategy to the corrosion threat will be discussed.

Introduction
Hydrocarbon fluids are produced from reservoirs located underground under sea beds and/or onshore. The hydrocarbon
fluids produced are normally accompanied by salt water and other substances like CO2, H2S, etc. Gathering of these fluids
from the source to separation locations is accomplish using three phase pipeline systems. After separation and dehydration
treatment natural gas or oil pipelines are mainly single phase systems.

All pipelines are susceptible to internal and external corrosion. Multiphase gathering pipeline systems are more susceptible to
internal corrosion because they carry gases and liquids which could be highly corrosive. Single phase pipeline systems are
less susceptible to internal corrosion. In this paper the term water refers to water produced from the reservoirs which include
in addition to pure water dissolved salts and other substances like CO2, H2S, etc as they naturally occur in the reservoirs for
example.

According to the NACE definition -Corrosion is the deterioration of a substance (usually a metal) or its properties because of a
reaction with its environment. Metals are substances unstable thermodynamically because of the high energy required to
transform ore to metal line pipe. Metal pipeline tend to react with environmental elements like water and oxygen so it can
reach more stable energy state like oxides as a result metallic pipelines segments in contact with water environments tend to
corrode easier.

As indicated above, corrosion most likely will occur in an environment in which the metal is in contact with a water or an
electrolyte, physically this could happen either in the periphery of the pipeline or internally. The peripheral corrosion is named
external corrosion and when corrosion occurs inside the pipeline, it is designated internal corrosion.

Corrosion Assessment Methodologies

Corrosion assessment practices have been accepted by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in the US for liquid pipelines
and are in the process of being developed in similar fashion for gas pipelines.

These assessments methods are [1]:

Internal inspection using inline inspection (ILI) tools like smart pigs for non-destructive inspection of
pipelines. These tools could measure directly metal losses in certain regions of a pipeline internally and or
externally.
Hydrostatic and other pressure testing methods in which the pipeline is tested for a period of time above
their operating pressure.
Direct Assessment (DA) or a combination of data gathering of relevant information about the pipeline
system. This may include the use of modeling techniques or surveys to determine places susceptible to
corrosion, direct examination of susceptible segments, and post-assessment review
Direct Assessment procedures address separately internal corrosion (ICDA) and external corrosion (ECDA).

ICDA is a continuous improvement process. It is a series of methods to determine locations of accumulation of liquids and
associated residence time, coupled with fluid characteristics (pH; temperature; pressure, etc.) to predict the susceptibility to
internal corrosion.

ECDA also is a continuous improvement process. The process outlines various periodic activities to locate lack of performance
in the external periphery of the pipeline. These activities are related to over-line surveys like Pipeline Current Mapper (PCM),
Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG), Close Interval Survey (CIS), etc [2]. ECDA will not be addressed in this paper.

This paper will discuss a system to develop an ICDA process which could be included as part of a Pipeline Integrity
Management Plan (IMP). The IMP is a system developed and carried forward by pipeline operators for safety operation of
pipelines in compliance with rules and regulations internal to the company and or external as government organizations.

Background
The ICDA process encompasses two stages.

The first stage is a high level or qualitative assessment and it is used to rank the severity for internal corrosion
susceptibility among several pipeline systems. This ranking system is done using technical and operational
parameters. This is an analytical assessment which does not include speculative assumptions. This qualitative
analysis uses existing technologies like: satellite mapping imagery, GIS Digital Elevation Mapping (DEM), inclination
angle calculations and indexing analysis.

The second stage is a quantitative analysis of the assets or pipelines selected for detailed assessment. This
qualitative analysis requires accurate data of flowing fluids for PVT characterization. Also this analysis requires
detailed description for the pipeline geometry to determine inclination angle. Proper inclination angle characterization
is very important to determine location of water accumulation and transient time. Coupled with operational data the
pipeline system could be modeled using three-phase transient simulators to determine location of water
accumulations and transient time of such water, also corrosion rates could be determined. After corrosion
susceptible areas have being determined by modeling tools these sites are field verified using non-destructive tools
(NDT) to determine changes in thickness or metal losses in the interior of the line pipe. Once the results have been
validated using NDT or ILI information then the process is recalibrated and a new improved ICDA process will restart.

Current state of the art modeling simulators have the capability of predicting accurately the slip (velocity difference) between
oil and water. In fluids flowing at low velocities the slip effect could be considerable and it is one of the main factors why water
tends to accumulate at low spots and form slugs making these areas susceptible to serious internal corrosion growth. OLGA
2000 is the leading simulation software for predictions of flow regimes of oil and/or water that wet the pipeline wall. Transient
modeling is effective in determining pressure, temperature, liquid flow velocity, and wall shear stress used in corrosion rate
calculations.

Once the water and corrosion susceptible areas have been determined and verified, the next step is to develop a mitigation
program aligned designed to stop and if possible eliminate the corrosion threats. A proper mitigation plan will be a determining
factor in development of an operational and maintenance program for safe operation and prolonging the pipeline useful life.
The ICDA is a dynamic process even though the pipeline profile tends to have little to no modifications. The flowing fluids
change due to reservoir depletion for example, and the operating conditions change quite often. These changes re-adjust the
ICDA process and the mitigation strategy plan.

A mitigation strategy plan is depicted in the matrix included in Table 1. This matrix considers unmitigated corrosion rate and
transient time parameters. In this example were considered two parameters corrosion rate and water transit. In other
situations this mitigation strategy plan could also include other parameters like water cut, percentage of CO2 in the fluid mix,
etc. Development of the mitigation strategy plan requires knowledge and experience by the operations team so all the
relevant parameters are included to determine accurately the corrosion threat parameters affecting a pipeline system. These
parameters could change depending on weather the pipeline system is onshore or offshore, if the pipeline is a gathering
system or a transmission system, if the pipeline carries multiphase or single phase fluids, or if the pipeline transports oil,
natural gas or hydrocarbon products.
 Table 1. Mitigation Strategy Plan

Mitigation Strategy Plan - Example

Water Transient Time Low Reasonable Moderate High
Horizontally < 100 hr/mile 100 to 500 hr/mile 500 to 1000 hr/mile > 1000 hr/mile
Unmitigated corrosion
rate vertically
< 10 mpy CIWS CIWS CIWS CIWS
MSA MSA MSA MSA
10 to 50 mpy CIWS CIWS CIWS CIWS
MSA MSA MSA MSA
50 to 100 mpy CIWS CIWS CIWS CIWS
MSA MSA MSA MSA
SB quarterly SB quarterly SB monthly SB monthly
CPWR quarterly CPWR monthly SWD monthly
BWOS month
> 100 mpy CIWS CIWS CIWS CIWS
MSA MSA MSA MSA
SB quarterly SB quarterly SB monthly SB monthly
SWD SWD monthly SWD monthly SWD 2/month
quarterly CPWR monthly BWOS monthly BWOS
CPWR monthly
quarterly
Continuous Inhibition water soluble inhibitor = CIWS
Batch with oil soluble inhibitor with pigs = BWOS
Slug of bactericide for SRB and APB bacteria = SB
Slug of water dispersible corrosion inhibitor = SWD
Monitor and stop air ingress = MSA
Cleaning Pig to remove water = CPWR

Field Case
As previously discussed, a detailed description of water accumulation in a flow line is a critical component in correctly
assessing internal corrosion in a multiphase flow system. Using the transient multiphase flow simulator OLGA 2000, a model
was constructed to represent hypothetical conditions at a sub-sea hydrocarbon transportation system. The results of
simulations performed with this model help demonstrate that water accumulation and, consequently, internal corrosion direct
assessment are dependant on the dynamic interaction of multiphase flow variables.

Case Description
The selected hydrocarbon-transportation system consists in a sub-sea pipeline approximately 5 km long, which connects two
processing platforms. The water depth at the location of Platform 1 is about 250 m. Fluid (mainly high-density oil and water) is
injected at this location and flows through a 14 inch pipeline that connects to Platform 2. This second platform is located at a
water depth of 360 m. The downward inclination of the flow line induces a gravity-dominated behavior to the flow, which is
evidenced in the results. This case simulates a pipeline system which has been in operation for some time, as the reservoir is
depleting fewer hydrocarbons fluids are produced. Also, the water cut could increase. As fields deplete operators are faced
with larger installations (larger diameter pipe) to transport less amount of fluids. This operational mode creates a challenge for
the operators to understand multiphase fluid flow behavior to properly manage corrosion situations that could appear due to
changes in operations.

Two simulations were conducted. A first case assumes no gas flow and a second case considers a very limited amount of gas
(Gas to oil ratio (GOR) = 5 SCF/STB). In field applications it is common to have small amounts of gas in liquid hydrocarbon
transportation systems, and consequently the results of the second case here considered would be more realistic. Additionally,
a comparison between these two cases will help demonstrate the big influence that a small amount of gas can make in the
operability parameters of a multiphase flow system and ultimately in corrosion estimates derived from them.
More detailed information about the pipeline and fluid characteristics is included in Table 2. In addition to the input included in
Table 2, a detailed elevation profile is also available. This information is important to ensure a correct modeling of water
deposition, since in most practical cases water tends to accumulate in low spots along the pipeline.

The simulations take into account the interaction among the different fluid phases such as the difference in velocities of water
and oil (slip), generation and dissipation of liquid slugs, and emulsion modeling along with multiphase flow phenomena.
Additionally, a full heat transfer calculation is performed in order to describe the thermal interaction of the different fluids and
the concentric layers of materials comprising the pipeline and its surroundings.

Table 2. Pipeline and fluid data as used in simulations

Pipeline and Operation Parameters Fluid Properties

Pipe Inner Density at Std. Cond. (kg/m3) 940
13.5
diameter (in)
Wall thickness Oil Viscosity at Std. Cond. (cp) 128
0.25
(in)
Flow Rate (STB/d) 7300
Inner
0.0018
roughness (in) Density at Std. Cond. (kg/m3) 1011
Riser length (m) 253
Platform 1 Water Viscosity at Std. Cond. (cp) 1
Inlet Temperature (F) 140
Flow Rate (bbl/d) 9600
Riser length (m) 362
Gas to Oil Ratio GOR Case 1 5
Platform 2 Outlet Temperature
86 (SCF/STB)
(F) Case 2 0
Outlet pressure
790 CO2 in full stream composition (mol %) 0.55
(psia)
Length (km) 4.9
Flow Line Buried
Insulation 1m in
soil

Results
Results from the simulation assume that the system has reached a stable condition after 24 hours of transient flow. Estimates
of flow variables after 24 hours are considered in this paper to ovoid initial transient flow characteristics which are temporary in
nature and normally do not affect the overall corrosion scheme of the pipeline. However, the multiphase flow simulator OLGA
2000 can model slug and hydrate occurrences as well as other sophisticated transient phenomena. Figure 1 through Figure 6
include the results of the numerical simulations. Figure 1 shows profile plots of pressure and temperature after 24 hours of
flow. The case with a GOR of 5 SCF/STB shows a higher pressure in the first portion of the line, which evidences a high
content of gas content in this area.
 Pressure Profile
Fluid Temperature (GOR=0 SCF/STB)
Fluid Temperature (GOR=5 SCF/STB)
Pressure (GOR=0 SCF/STB)
Pressure (GOR=5 SCF/STB)
142 1400

140
1300

138

Fluid Temperature (deg. F)

1200
136

Pressure (psia)
134 1100

132
1000

130
900
128

800
126

124 700
-200 200 600 1,000 1,400 1,800 2,200 2,600 3,000 3,400 3,800 4,200 4,600 5,000
Horizontal Distance (m)

Figure 1 Profile of pressure and temperature

Figure 2 shows liquid velocities for both cases (with and without gas). For the case with injection of gas, it can be seen that
even though gas flow rate is very limited, it has a large influence on the liquid velocity estimates, especially along the first 3.8
km of the flow line. From the bottom of the Platform 1 riser, up to this location, liquid velocities are between 5 ft/s and 3 ft/s. In
contrast, the case with no flow of gas shows lower liquid velocities in the same area. The reason for this behavior is that even
though there is only a small amount of gas flowing, gas tends to accumulate in the line unable to reach the riser, as liquid
moves much more easily to the riser helped by gravity effects. In areas of gas accumulation, the available cross sectional area
of the pipeline available for liquid flow will be reduced and liquid velocities will consequently be larger. As the gas content
decreases at the vicinity of the Platform 2 riser, liquid velocities for both cases tend to be closer.

Fluid Velocities
Pipeline Profile Oil Film Velocity (GOR=0 SCF/STB)
Oil Film Velocity (GOR=5 SCF/STB) Water Film Velocity (GOR=0 SCF/STB)
Water Film Velocity (GOR=5 SCF/STB)
100 6.0

50
5.0
0

-50
Fluid Velocity (ft/s)

4.0
Elevation (m)

-100

-150 3.0

-200
2.0
-250

-300
1.0
-350

-400 0.0
-200 200 600 1,000 1,400 1,800 2,200 2,600 3,000 3,400 3,800 4,200 4,600 5,000
Distance (m)

Figure 2 Profile of fluid velocities

Figure 3 shows results of liquid holdup (i.e. fraction of the cross sectional area of the pipeline occupied by liquids) as well as
the water fraction. The difference between liquid holdup and water fraction for each case corresponds to the hydrocarbon
liquid fraction based on pipe cross sectional area. This figure confirms the previously described situation. When considering
gas flow, the liquid holdup in the first 3.8 km of the line is no larger than 40%. As the fluids get closer to the Platform 2 riser,
both cases show similar values of liquid holdup and water fraction. For the case of gas flow, gas will keep on accumulating in
the flow line until it reaches enough pressure to overcome the riser and exit the flow line.
 Profile of Liquid Holdup and Water Fraction
Pipeline Profile Liquid Holdup (GOR=0 SCF/STB)
Liquid Holdup (GOR=5 SCF/STB) Water Fraction (GOR=0 SCF/STB)
Water Fraction (GOR=5 SCF/STB)
100

50 1.0

Liquid Holdup or Water

0.8
-50

Fraction (fraction)
Elevation (m)
-100
0.6
-150

-200
0.4
-250

-300
0.2

-350

-400 0.0
-200 200 600 1,000 1,400 1,800 2,200 2,600 3,000 3,400 3,800 4,200 4,600 5,000
Distance (m)

Figure 3 Profile of liquid hold up and water fraction

Figure 4 shows results of flow regime along the line. The case including gas flow shows evidences of slug flow (intermittent
flow of gas and liquid) along the last kilometer of the line. This situation which although is not directly related to the scope of
this paper, represents a common problem in hydrocarbon-transportation systems, which can be modeled with the aid of
transient simulations.

Profile of Flow Regime

Pipeline Profile
Flow Regime Indicator (GOR=0 SCF/STB)
Flow Regime Indicator (GOR=5 SCF/STB)

100 5

50
Flow Regime Indicator
0 Convention 4
1 = Stratified Flow
Flow Regime Indicator
-50 2= Annulat Flow
3= Slug Flow
Elevation (m)

4= Bubble Flow
-100 3

-150

-200 2

-250

-300 1

-350

-400 0
-200 200 600 1,000 1,400 1,800 2,200 2,600 3,000 3,400 3,800 4,200 4,600 5,000
Distance (m)

Figure 4 Profile of flow regime indicator

The last two figures here included provide a direct estimate of corrosion in the system. First, Figure 5 shows the Water
Transit time for both cases. This variable is the residence time of the water phase per unit of length of pipeline. For the system
analyzed, we note that gravity induces a relatively low water transient time (i.e. less than 0.75 hr/mile). It is also noted that the
case that considers gas flow, shows an even lower water transient time of about 0.25 hr/mile for the first 4 km of the line since
liquid flows at a larger velocity in this area due to almost immobile volume of gas occupying about 60% of the cross sectional
area of the pipeline.
 Profile of Water Transit
Pipeline Profile
Water Transit (GOR=0 SCF/STB)
Water Transit (GOR=5 SCF/STB)
100 3.0

50
2.5
0

Water Transit (hr/mile)

-50
2.0

Elevation (m)
-100

-150 1.5

-200
1.0
-250

-300
0.5
-350

-400 0.0
-200 200 600 1,000 1,400 1,800 2,200 2,600 3,000 3,400 3,800 4,200 4,600 5,000
Distance (m)

Figure 5 Profile of water transit

On the other hand, Figure 6 shows OLGA 2000 estimates of corrosion rates according to the Norsok CO2 corrosion model [3].
The case that includes gas flow shows a maximum corrosion rate of 6.7 mil/year. This value is larger that the one obtained
when there is no gas flow even though water transit time is reduced (i.e. 6.2 mil/year), mainly because there is a larger amount
of CO2 in the system when gas is part of the fluid full stream. Considering a corrosion rate of 6.7 mil/year, it would take
approximately 30 years to corrode 80% of the thickness of the pipeline. The calculated corrosion rates are considered as
being relatively low according to the classification included in Table 1. According to this table, the appropriate mitigation
techniques in this field case example consist in Continuous inhibition with a water-soluble inhibitor (CIWS) and Monitoring
and stop of air ingress (MSA). Although this case is not initially susceptible to suffer from severe corrosion conditions, as
reservoirs deplete, water production usually increases and a condition of larger water transient time and larger corrosion rate
could well be encountered.

Profile of Corrosion Rate According to NORSOK CO2 Model

Pipeline Profile
Corrosion Rate (GOR=0 SCF/STB)
Corrosion Rate (GOR=5 SCF/STB)
100 7.0

50

6.5
0
Corrosion Rate (mil/year)

-50
6.0
Elevation (m)

-100

-150 5.5

-200

5.0
-250

-300
4.5
-350

-400 4.0
-200 200 600 1,000 1,400 1,800 2,200 2,600 3,000 3,400 3,800 4,200 4,600 5,000
Distance (m)

Figure 6 Profile of corrosion rate according to the NORSOK CO2 corrosion model
Conclusions
1. Use of the OLGA 2000 simulator allows predictions of water holdup values and transient time and corrosion rates
estimates, as well as pressure and temperature profiles. These values and profiles are very important tools in
determining corrosion threats and elaboration of effective mitigation plans.
2. Simulations with OLGA 2000 provide accurate pressure and temperature profiles which are valuable tools to operate
the pipeline under maximum operating pressures MAOP and above hydrate and wax temperature curves.
3. Unmitigated corrosion rate for our example is around 6.7 mil/yr which yields 30 years of penetration rate until 80% of
the wall thickness have been reached
4. Transportation of de-gassed fluids decreases the corrosion rate because of low partial pressure of acid gas or CO2
dissolved in water.
5. High water velocity favors the protective action of injected water soluble inhibitors. This protection is based on an
effective formation of protective inhibitor film between the pipe wall and the water film. This action increases
significantly the useful life of the pipeline by years or decades.
6. In our study case, regular cleaning pigging practices are not required because the water film is moving at high
velocity. This movement does not allow stagnation of water along the pipeline which in turn does not allow the
formation of bacteria deposits or settlement of solids like scale or sand.
7. It is common to find in oil emulsion pipelines the oil film slipping over the water film. In this study case due to the
pipeline profile or significant downward inclination angle water gains momentum due to gravity and literally slips
under the oil film throughout the entire pipeline section until reaching the riser at the delivery end. This favors the
protective action of using continuous injection of water base inhibitors making not necessary the use of cleaning pigs
or the application of sticky oil based inhibitors to cover the pipeline with a protective film.

References
1. Moghissi O, Norris L, Dusek P, Cookigham B, Sridhar N.; Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment of Gas Transmission
Pipelines Methodology; GTI April 1, 2002.
2. Perich W, van Oostendrop L, Puente P, Stike N.; Integrated Data Approach to Pipeline Integrity Management;
Pipeline and Gas Journal; October 2003.
3. Norwegian Technology Standards Institution; CO2 Corrosion Rate Calculation Model; NORSOK standard No. M-
506.