SPE 103922
Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment for Multiphase Flow Pipeline Systems
P.G. Puente, SPE, and C. Collado, Scandpower PT
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the First International Oil Conference and Exhibition
in Mexico held in Cancun, Mexico, 31 August2 September 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Owners, operators, regulatory entities and non-
governmental agencies focus their attention on pipeline
Integrity Management Plans (IMP) to address the safety
and reliability of hydrocarbon pipelines as they cross
environmentally sensitive areas as well as densely
populated areas. IMP includes a base line assessment
prioritizing the inspection and remediation of expected
sensitive areas. Direct Assessment (DA) along with
internal inspection, hydro-test and other equivalent
methods to ascertain the condition of the pipeline are
used as IMP assessment methodologies.
The topic to be covered in this article is Internal Direct
Assessment which includes Erosional Velocity (EV) in
addition to Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA).
This article utilizes the analysis of an onshore gas
pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico to identify possible areas
susceptible to corrosion.
Multiphase flow analysis simulates the characteristics
and specific fluid behavior to determine erosional
velocity and internal corrosion in pipelines. A multiphase
flow simulator will be used to obtain the specific flow
characteristics to evaluate EV and ICDA for the above
mentioned pipeline system. Internal corrosion is
analyzed both as top of the line corrosion and corrosion
at the bottom of the line. In addition multiphase flow
simulation provides accurate information related to fluids
velocity and residence time.
The internal corrosion rate can be related to residence
time of water and other electrolytes to formulate effective
mitigation processes. This could serve as the basis for a
mitigation program and significantly increase the useful
life of a pipeline system.
Introduction
Among several components of an IMP are methods to
directly evaluate a pipeline system internally and
determine its integrity. These methods could be internal
inspection tools or hydro-testing. In many occasions the
availability of internal inspection tools, facilities to launch
and receive inspections devices and environmental
restrictions do not permit direct internal inspection of the
pipelines systems. Additionally, some systems due to
the service they provide may not interrupt service for
periods of time necessary to complete an in-line
inspection. In these and other cases Direct Assessment
could be used to determine the pipeline susceptibility to
internal corrosion.
ICDA is a planned and closed loop process designed to
assess the internal integrity of pipeline systems
transporting hydrocarbons. The ICDA process
described in this article uses existing proven
technologies to develop risk-based internal corrosion
susceptibility profiles for pipeline systems. Once the
critical locations have been determined then non-
invasive and non-destructive techniques like radiography
or ultrasonic thickness measurement could be used to
confirm wall thinning; if no corrosion damage exists then
other locations along the pipeline are less likely to be
corroded. As part of the direct assessment post-process
results of the inspection findings and model outputs are
compared, and then tuning of the model is done until
agreement with measured results is reached. In this
way the loop is closed and it is ready for a new cycle.
Multiphase flow transient modeling allows determination
of key flow characteristics to determine the overall risk-
based internal corrosion susceptibility profile. Main flow
characteristics are profiles for: pressure, temperature,
water film velocity, pH, fluid phase velocities, fluid phase
superficial velocities, partial pressure of CO2, shear
stress between water film and pipeline wall, flow regime
indicator, and critical velocity. All the mentioned
parameters and additional information from the model is
used in determining the probability of corrosion
susceptibility at each segment of the pipeline system. It
is important to mention that sweet corrosion exists only if
a water film is wetting the pipeline wall.
A risk-based internal corrosion profile for a pipeline from
the Gulf of Mexico shore to a processing system in
2 SPE 103922
Mexico onshore was developed. This pipeline is 65.7
Km in length and transports gas, condensate and water.
This pipeline is in the design phase and is estimated to
be 36 inch in diameter.
Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment ICDA
The objective of ICDA is to identify pipeline segments
susceptible to internal corrosion and then perform an
internal corrosion hazard assessment on those
segments (1). ICDA utilizes existing proven
technologies to develop a risk-based internal corrosion
susceptibility profile for pipeline systems. The
assessment results from the ICDA are utilized to identify
specific sites for evaluation of corrosion damage using
non-destructive examinations to verify the pipeline
integrity.
ICDA is a structured process designed to assess the
internal integrity of pipelines transporting hydrocarbons.
The following steps are recommended to be considered
in developing the ICDA process in a Pipeline Integrity
Plan; these steps are not limiting and they could change
as operating and environmental conditions change.
1. Evaluation of critical inclination angles along the
pipeline route where electrolyte substances including
water could accumulate. This provides information
where potential corrosion activity could develop.
2. Development of multiphase flow models to
determine locations of water accumulation. These
models should include at least velocities of each
phase of the transporting fluids, intensity of corrosion
rates, critical velocities to determine erosional
velocities, pH and partial pressure of CO2. As the
operating conditions change and/or the fluid
characteristics change these models should be
updated.
3. Develop a risk-based internal corrosion susceptibility
profile for the pipeline using the information from the
above simulation. Risk is defined as a measure of
the likelihood or frequency of an event occurring in
combination with the consequences of that event,
as:
Risk = (Probability of Failure) x (Consequences of Failure)
4. Examination of critical sites resulting from high risk
corrosion evaluation using the models above
mentioned. For most onshore pipelines excavation
and inspection using non-destructive and non-
invasive examination methods (radiography or
ultrasonic) are required to assess corrosion at the
chosen locations. If the critical locations after
inspection indicate that no corrosion damage exists
then other locations along the pipeline are less likely
to be corroded.
5. Once a site has been exposed installation of
corrosion monitoring devices will allow the operator
to continue monitoring sites were electrolytes
accumulate.
6. Update the Pipeline Integrity Plan and restart the
quality cycle at the first step indicated above.
Multiphase transient flow model
Sophisticated and complex multiphase simulators are
used for development of systems flow simulations. Main
components of these models are:
Pipeline Profile
Special attention must be placed in the development
of the pipeline profile. This profile should follow the
pipeline route as closely as possible. There should be
no simplifications or grouping of segments and use of
equivalent segments. Location of segments prone to
corrosion in the model should be as close as possible to
the actual pipeline location.
Fluid and PVT properties
It is important to have the correct fluid composition for
hydrocarbons and water. A complete water analysis will
provide information of substances dissolved in the water
phase especially if it is formation water. Certain ions
could precipitate and form films which in turn could
partially or totally protect the pipeline wall from corrosion.
The fluid properties are calculated within the
simulator or interpolated from tables having the fluid
properties for a range of pressure and temperatures. If
the PVT information is provided by tables, these values
should be checked for discontinuities and strange
tendencies.
It is also important that the simulation process
complies with three phase flow mass balance options as
well as with water/oil slip.
Operating and boundary conditions
Operating and boundary flow conditions are
important parameters in determining the fluid behavior
during simulations. Pressure, temperature, flow rates,
watercut and gas oil ratio are parameters required to
establish the operating and boundary conditions.
Heat transfer profile
To properly simulate the heat transfer process, the
thickness and the thermal properties of the pipeline
components should be described as well as how those
materials are distributed along the pipeline profile. This
will allow regions to be accurately modeled with
insulation, concrete coating, buried or exposed to the
environment in each pipeline section. The most
advanced simulators are capable of calculating the heat
accumulation in the pipe walls as well as heat
conduction through the walls into the surroundings.
SPE 103922
Corrosion rate calculation methods
In multiphase flow systems water and CO2 react and
attack carbon steel pipelines producing corrosion. This
environment does not include presence of H2S. The
basic chemical reactions are (2):
CO 2 + H 2 O H 2 CO 3
This reaction dissociates in two steps
H 2 CO3 H + + HCO3 and
+ 2
HCO 3 H + CO 3 Top of the line corrosion TOLC (4)
In a corrosive CO2 environment when the Fe+2 and
CO32- are above the solubility limit they combine to form
a film of iron carbonate which protects partially the pipe
wall from corrosion.
Fe2 + CO3 FeCO3 (solid )
2
Corrosion rates in the pipeline segments are
calculated using the variables calculated during the
simulation process and applying them to well known
corrosion models used widely in the industry. These
models are De Waard 95 and Norsok for bottom of the
pipe corrosion and IFEs of Norway for top of the line
corrosion (TOLC) or corrosion caused by water
condensation normally located at the 12 oclock position.
Both de Waard 95 and Norsok corrosion models are
regarded as conservative methods.
De Waard 95 (3)
The de Waard 95 model was developed by C de
Waard et al after intense and numerous experiments in
high pressure close loops. The de Waard 95 corrosion
rate CR is calculate by:
CR = (1 / (1 / Vr + 1 / Vm )) Fscale
Vr is the maximum corrosion rate estimated for the
limiting reaction rate as a function of the temperature,
partial pressure of CO2 and pH.
Vr = f ((T , pH , Pco 2 )
Vm is the maximum corrosion rate caused at the
limiting mass transfer rate as a function of partial
pressure of CO2, liquid flow velocity and hydraulic
diameter.
Vm = C Pco 2 U L0.8 DH0.2
Fscale is the scale protection factor as a function of
temperature and partial pressure of CO2
3
Fscale = g (T , PCO 2 )
Norsok
The Norsok standards are developed by the
Norwegian petroleum industry for protection and safety
of offshore and onshore petroleum installations. The
Norsok M 506 is a CO2 corrosion rate calculation model.
The corrosion rate is estimated as a function of pH,
temperature, partial pressure of CO2 and wall shear
stress.
CR = f ( pH , T ) g (T ) h(PCO 2 , )
The Norwegian Institute of Energy IFE developed the
top of the line corrosion model. This model is limited by
the amount of iron that can be dissolved in condensed
water:
CR = a Rcond C fe (b T )
Rcond is the water condensation rate calculated by the
multiphase flow simulator and Cfe is a function of partial
pressure of CO2 and temperature.
C fe = f (T , PCO 2 )
Risk-based corrosion susceptibility profile
Using the information develop in the multiphase flow
simulation a risk-based profile will be created. Based on
operational and environmental conditions, it is suggested
to determine the total risk profile based in these three
characteristics:
Residence time of the water film in the pipeline or
water in contact with the pipe wall. Presence of
stagnant water film and CO2 will produce corrosion
and eventually pitting. The water film residence time
could be estimated from the water film velocity
values from the simulation. Water film residence
time can be high, moderate and low, depending on
the operational conditions and fluid corrosive
properties it is suggest a total of 70% of the total risk
be attributed to the effect of stagnant water film in
the pipeline. This risk value allocation could change
depending on information from non-destructive
examination and if available data from internal
inspection instruments or smart pigs.
Corrosion rate. The corrosion rate developed by de
Waard 95 method, which is from experience a little
less conservative than the Norsok method, could be
used to determine the corrosion rate of each
segment of the pipeline. It is assumed that a
corrosion allowance is included in sizing the pipeline
system. The probability of failure is proportional to
the corrosion of maximum allowance. This is a
measurement of the corrosion intensity. Risk from
the corrosion rate intensity could amount to 25% of
the total risk.
4 SPE 103922
Erosional Velocity. Erosional velocity could cause
erosion in some pipeline segments and these areas
are more susceptible to corrosion. Risk from the
erosional velocity could be the remaining 5% of the
total risk.
Study Case - ICDA
The study case is for a multiphase pipeline system
located in Mexico. This multiphase flow pipeline system
is in the design phase. The system comprises a pipeline
65.7 Km in length and 36 inch nominal diameter. The
pipeline is located onshore and it is generally buried to a
depth of 1 m. The ICDA process for the study case
includes two phases. The first phase is the development
of a multiphase transient analysis for two flow scenarios
540 and 200 MMscfd. The second phase is the
development of a risk-based corrosion susceptibility
profile using the simulations results.
Study Case - Multiphase flow Model
Case study parameters were input into the OLGA v5
multiphase flow simulator. The main components of this
model were:
Pipeline Profile
The pipeline profile was downloaded from an Auto
Cad file. The profile is indicated in Figure 1 and consists
of 785 segments.
Fluid Properties
Fluid composition and properties were modeled using
the PVTsim package and the fluid properties were
downloaded into a table in a text file .tab type. The SRK
equations of state with the Peneloux correction were
used to generate the fluid properties.
Operating and boundary conditions
The operating and boundary conditions for the case
study are included in Table 1.
Heat transfer
The pipeline materials and soil thermal properties are
indicated in Table 2. These materials form a layer
around the pipe as indicated in Table 3. These elements
along with the ambient temperature of 71.6 oF are the
environment in which the heat transfer process occurs
along the pipeline system.
Water options
The simulation will be modeled including water slip
and water flash options. The slip option considers the
velocity difference between oil and free water. The
water flash option specifies the mass transfer between
free water and gas phase.
Corrosion models
The corrosion module was set to calculate corrosion
rates using the Norsok and de Waard 95 models for the
bottom pipeline corrosion and for the top of the line
corrosion rate using the IFE model. (2) (3)
The produced water is estimated to contain 2% molar
concentration of bicarbonates and an ionic strength of
1.1 mol/l.
Source
The source located at the beginning of the pipeline
system will inject either 540 or 200 MMscfd at the inlet
point. The source temperature will be 86 oF and the
watercut will be 0.1.
Study Case - Simulation results
Two scenarios were simulated for this study case.
The first scenario or Case 1 is for the average expected
production of 540 MMscfd and the second scenario or
Case 2 is for a low production rate of 200 MMscfd.
Case 1 - Production flow rate 540 MMscfd
The first case considers an inlet gas volume of 540
MMscfd and a water production volume of 43 STBD per
operating information. Upon start-up the pipeline starts
from steady state conditions and stabilizes after 30
hours. The simulation was conducted for 120 hours at
which time the system is completely in stable conditions.
Figure 2 depicts the elevation, pressure and
temperature profiles. These profiles provide the
pressure and temperature values at 120 hours of the
simulation.
Figure 3 indicates the partial pressure of CO2, pH
and the shear stress between the water film and the pipe
wall after 120 hours of simulation. These parameters
and liquid velocities are used by the corrosion models to
determine the corrosion rate at each section.
Figure 4 depicts the water cut or water film in contact
with the pipe wall. This curve is taken at 120 hours into
the simulation. It is important to mention that the water
film start forming at Km post 34. Prior to that location
water has been dispersed into the gas phase.
Figure 5 indicates the corrosion rate calculated by the
de Waard 95 method, the water film velocity and the
erosional velocity ratio. All these parameters are the
main components in determining the risk-based
corrosion susceptibility profile. Part of this profile is
included in Table 4.
Case 2 Production flow rate 200 MMscfd
Case 2 considers a much lower gas inlet gas volume.
The gas inlet volume is 2000 MMscfd and a water
production volume of 16 STBD. The system starts from
steady state conditions and stabilizes after 50 hours in
relation to pressure and temperature. At the 200
MMscfd production level the system experiences
formation of many slugs and the liquid delivery volume at
the outlet swings constantly as indicated in Figure 6.
SPE 103922
Figure 7 depicts the elevation, pressure and
temperature profiles. These profiles provide the
pressure and temperature values at 120 hours of the
simulation.
Figure 8 indicates curves for the partial pressure of
CO2, pH and the shear stress between the water film
and the pipe wall after 120 hours of simulation. These
parameters along with the liquid velocities are used by
the corrosion models to determine the corrosion rate at
each section.
Figure 9 depicts the water cut or water film in contact
with the pipe wall. This curve is taken at 120 hours into
the simulation. This is an important parameter that
shows where the water film is in contact with the pipe
wall. The water film is in contact with the wall from the
beginning of the pipeline and in some section in the first
7 Km of the pipeline there is no contact of water with the
pipe wall because of dispersion of water in the gas
phase and flow conditions due to the inclination angle of
the pipeline.
Figure 10 indicates the corrosion rate calculated by
the de Waard 95 method, the water film velocity and the
erosional velocity ratio. All these parameters are main
components in determining the risk-based corrosion
susceptibility profile. Part of this profile is included in
Table 5.
Study Case - Risk-based corrosion susceptibility
profile
A risk-based corrosion susceptibility profile for both
scenarios Case 1 and Case 2 were developed following
the procedures indicated in the Risk-based corrosion
susceptibility profile part of this paper.
For each case there are 785 segments. Inclusion of
all this segments in the paper will be to long, therefore
only a part of these profiles are included for illustrative
purposes. A section from Km post 63 to the end of the
line is included for discussion. In the risk tables, low and
high limit values determines the ranges for which the
corrosion risk is consider low, medium or high. Values
less than the low limit are considered of low risk (green
cells), values between low and high limit are considered
medium risk (yellow cells) and values above the high
limit are considered high risk.
Table 4 includes the risk-based corrosion
susceptibility profile for the Case 1 segments. Table 5
includes the segments for the Case 2. Table 6 is a
summary and includes the total risk values for both
cases.
5
Conclusions
Understanding of corrosion susceptibility along a
pipeline system will allow safe design of pipelines.
An accurate understanding of corrosion
susceptibility will provide an important tool in
designing a corrosion mitigation plan.
Operating conditions such as flow rates, delivery
pressures and water production significantly alter the
corrosion susceptibility profile. Therefore,
depending on operational factors the corrosion
mitigation plan will need to change.
Production water has been in contact with the
reservoir rock for long periods of time (centuries)
and dissolved electrolytes are important in
determining the corrosion rates and susceptibility of
pipeline systems. Therefore, water analyses are
important for determining corrosion rates.
Corrosion occurs in places where an electrolyte is in
contact with the pipe wall. Understanding where wet
areas occur and water residence time are among
the most important parameters in determining
corrosion susceptibility risk along pipeline systems.
Multiphase flow models are unique tools which can
provide most of the information necessary to
develop risk-based corrosion susceptibility profiles.
Reference:
1. Perich, W. et al.: Integrated data approach to
Pipeline Integrity Management. Pipeline & Gas
Journal (October, 2003)
2. Norsveen, M. et al.: Implementation of CO2
corrosion models in OLGA three phase flow
code. NACE Paper No. 00048 (Corrosion 2000)
3. De Waard, C. et al.: Influence in liquid flow
velocity on CO2 corrosion: a semi-empirical
model. (1995).
4. Singer, M. et al.: Top of the line corrosion in
presence of acetic acid and carbon dioxide.
NACE Paper No 04377 (Corrosion 2004).
6 SPE 103922

Tables

Operating and Boundary Conditions

Temper
Label Type Abs. Pos. Pressure GMF
ature

INLET CLOSED

995.4
OUTLET PRESSURE 77 F 1
PSIG

SOURCE-
41.667 M 80 F
1

Table 1 Operating and Boundary Conditions

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

Summary Case 1 and Case 2

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

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

Figures

Figure 4 Case 1 540 MMscfd Water Film Near

the Wall

Figure 5 Case 1 540 MMscfd Corrosion Rate De

Waard 95, Water Film Velocity and Erosional
Velocity Ratio

Figure 2 Case 1 - 540 MMscfd Elevation, Pressure

and Temperature Profile

Figure 6 - Case 2 200 MMscfd Total Liquid

Volume Flow at Outlet

Figure 3 Case 1 540 MMscfd Partial Pressure of

CO2, pH and Water film-Wall Shear Stress

Figure 7 Case 2 200 MMscfd Elevation,

Pressure and Temperature Profile
SPE 103922 9

Figure 8 Case 2 200 MMscfd Partial Pressure of

CO2, pH and Water Film-Wall Shear Stress

Figure 9 Case 2 200 MMscfd Water Film near

the Wall

Figure 10 Case 2 200 MMscfd - Corrosion Rate

De Waard 95, Water Film Velocity and Erosional
Velocity Ratio