68 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE August 2009

Corrosion
Management
for Seawater
Injection
Systems
ALI MORSHED, Production Services Network (PSN), Aberdeen, U.K.
Seawater injection (SWI) is important to maintain
oilfeld production and to provide various systems
with treated seawater. Any shortcomings in seawater
treatment will have serious efects on production and
asset integrity. Tis article examines SWI systems
integrity management from a corrosion management
point of view. It reviews major shortcomings and
makes recommendations to rectify them and improve
overall integrity management of a typical SWI system
from a corrosion management standpoint.
A
seawater injection (SWI) system
plays an important role for its
asset and associated reservoir(s).
It maintains reservoir pressure
for hydrocarbon production and feeds
other systems as well. Any shortcomings
in the seawater treatment process can
adversely affect hydrocarbon production,
the integrity of the SWI system itself, and
those systems that receive seawater from
it. A proper integrity management system
(IMS) is therefore indispensable for any
SWI system.
The IMS should include corrosion
engineering (CE) and corrosion manage-
ment (CM) components. Accordingly,
any shortcomings or failures associated
with such an IMS could be either CE-
based or CM-related. This article focuses
on the latter and explains how using the
CM concept defnition could help the
corrosion engineer in determining such
CM-related shortcomings and distin-
guishing them from the CE-based ones.
Finally, the article presents a list of CM-
related proposals that are intended to
improve the overall SWI system integrity
management, mainly based on the U.K.s
North Sea experience.
Common Integrity Threats
and their Mitigation
There are three main integrity threats
often associated with SWI systems. Table
1 lists these threats and some of the more
common mitigation methods that are
used to rectify them.
Microbiologically
Infuenced Corrosion
Microbiologically infuenced corro-
sion (MIC) is believed to be the most in-
sidious threat to SWIs because of these
feld observations:
Measured localized corrosion rates
caused by MIC are ~6.0 mm/y.
August 2009 MP.indd 68 7/27/09 11:15 AM
August 2009 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE 69
C H E MI C A L T R E AT ME N T
Once bacterial control has been lost,
it can take years to reinstate.
The required chlorination, biocide
treatment, and bacterial enumera-
tion are often inadequate, erratic, or
incorrect.
The process and utility systems fed
by SWI are often contaminated and
experience MIC to various degrees.
Such systems include diesel (sea-
water is used for diesel displace-
ment), produced water and pro-
duced oil (seawater is used for vessel
sandwashing), cooling water, and
fre water.
These points demonstrate the critical-
ity of SWI and the signifcance of main-
taining an effcient seawater treatment
process. While occasional dissolved oxy-
gen excursions would cause transient high
localized corrosion mainly in the SWI
system itself, ineffcient or inadequate
bacterial control would often lead to
prolonged and acute corrosion issues (and
sustained high localized corrosion rates)
within many of the aforementioned sys-
tems that are fed by the SWI system.
Once such MIC issues appear, they are
often too complicated and too expensive
to rectify.
Poor bacterial control can also lead to
bacteria being injected into the reservoir
with these adverse effects:
Reservoir souring: this occurs when
bacteria produce increasing levels of
hydrogen sulfde (H
2
S) within the
reservoir, gradually souring the
hydrocarbon content.
Production reduction: the bacte-
rial growth could block pores
within the reservoir, leading to
formation plugging. Such plugging
can eventually decrease produc-
tion rates.
Dissolved Oxygen and
Erosion-Corrosion
Corrosion from dissolved oxygen and
erosion-corrosion are considered the next
worst integrity threats (after MIC), re-
spectively.
There is sometimes a fourth threat
category, which is applicable only to those
facilities where the seawater and produced
water phases are mixed before being in-
jected into the reservoir. This threat is not
covered in this article, however, as it does
not apply to all SWI systems.
Observed Corrosion
Management
Shortcomings
A proper SWI integrity management
system comprises both CE and CM com-
ponents.
1
Thus, any observed shortcom-
ing associated with this IMS could be
either CE-based or CM-related. The
TABLE 1
The main integrity threats, areas affected by them, and the common corrosion engineering
mitigation measures for a typical SWI system
Integrity Threat Systems or Areas Affected Common CE Measures
MIC The SWI system itself plus the following systems that may
be fed by the SWI system: diesel, produced water, produced
oil, cooling water, and re water. The drain system may not
receive water from the SWI system directly, but it will do so
eventually and become acutely contaminated through some of
the above systems. The reservoir could also be contaminated by
the bacteria through water injection. This can lead to formation
plugging and increased H
2
S levels in the reservoir
Chlorination upstream of deaerator (DA) towers

Biocide injection downstream of DA towers
Oxygen Any exposed carbon steel (CS) surfaces, mainly within the
SWI system itself, but also any other system that receives
water from it
Use of copper nickel alloys upstream of the
deaerator towers

Deaeration via DA towers

Injection of oxygen scavenger

Use of internally coated CS piping

Use of internally clad CS injection ow lines
Erosion-corrosion Copper nickel pipework (if the ow velocity is higher than their
maximum velocity threshold)

Upstream and downstream of the seawater booster and main
injection pumps; in particular around bends, reducers, and
where pipework geometry creates higher turbulence

Erosion due to sand or suspended solids; in particular at areas
where ow changes direction, such as bends
Flow velocity control for copper nickel pipework
upstream of DA towers

Flow control upstream and downstream of SWI
pumps to minimize liquid erosion in bends,
reducers, etc.

Use of lters to remove suspended solids and
biological macrofouling
August 2009 MP.indd 69 7/27/09 11:15 AM
70 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE August 2009
C H E MI C A L T R E AT ME N T Corrosion Management for Seawater Injection Systems
CE-based shortcomings are more of a
physical activity in nature and closely
associated with the following four seawa-
ter treatment activities:
Filtration
Chlorination
Deaeration
Biociding
However, CE-based shortcomings are
not the focus of this article; hence they are
not discussed hereinafter. To better dis-
tinguish whether an integrity manage-
ment shortcoming is CE-based or CM-
related, the responsible corrosion engineer
should use the CM concept defnition.
According to this defnition, CM for any
asset (or any system within that asset) is
the process of reviewing the applied CE
considerations, the regular monitoring of
their performance, and the assessment of
their effectiveness post-commissioning.
Based on this defnition, the three main
elements of any corrosion management
system should sequentially be:
1) Reviewing the applied CE consid-
erations or principles
2) Regular monitoring of their perfor-
mance
3) Assessment of their effectiveness
Applying the above to any SWI integ-
rity management system would enable
the corrosion engineer to identify the
existing shortcomings from a CM stand-
point. North Sea experience has illus-
trated that such CM shortcomings for a
typical SWI systemwhile so numerous
and diversecould be divided into three
major categories. Table 2 lists these cat-
egories with their main consequences.
Table 2 also provides the link between
each category and the element of CM
associated with it.
Proposed Corrosion
Management
Improvements
Table 3 lists all the proposed CM-
related activities deemed to be required
TABLE 2
The main three categories of observed CM-related shortcomings, their association with the
pertinent CM element, and their main consequences within a SWI system
CM Shortcoming Category The Associated CM Element Consequences
Failure to perform an integrity review and
produce a corrosion control matrix for the
SWI system
Reviewing the initial CE considerations Inability to recognize or determine all those
activities indispensable to maintaining the SWI
system integrity

Inability to select the appropriate individual
corrosion KPI activities due to the lack of a
SWI-based corrosion control matrix

Inability to determine or identify all the existing
CE-based and CM-related shortcomings within
the SWI system

Inability to produce a fully risk-based
inspection scope for the SWI system
Failure to correctly enumerate the bacterial
population (both planktonic and sessile
types)
Regular monitoring of their performance Inability to determine the effectiveness of
chlorination and biociding treatments

Inability to determine when biocide shock
dosing is required

Inability to determine the extent of both
planktonic and sessile contaminations within
the SWI system
Failure to create and associate a corrosion
KPI system with the water treatment
process to monitor seawater treatment
performance and effectiveness
Assessment of their effectiveness Inability to determine and monitor the
effectiveness of seawater treatment in regard
to CE-based activities of chlorination,
deaeration, and biociding

Inability and difculty in communicating (or
reporting) the effectiveness of the water
treatment process within the SWI system

Inability to highlight and quantify the existing
CE-based issues to others; in particular to the
senior management
August 2009 MP.indd 70 7/27/09 11:15 AM
August 2009 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE 71
C H E MI C A L T R E AT ME N T
TABLE 3
Proposed CM-related activities associated with each basic CM element and the pertinent
integrity threat
Integrity Threat
Reviewing the Applied
CE Considerations
Regular Monitoring
of their Performance
Assessing their
Efciency
MIC Review design parametersgeometry,
material selection, corrosion allowance,
internal coating type, internal cladding
type, etc.
Use liquid sampling to enumerate
planktonic bacteria populations
regularly.

Use a sidestream to enumerate
sessile bacteria populations
regularly.
Based on the measured bacterial
populations, determine whether the
existing chlorination and biociding
processes are functioning efciently
and in an acceptable manner.
Review chemical treatment parameters
chemical type, treatment type (i.e., batch
or continuous), frequency, concentration,
injection location, etc.
Measure residual chlorine
levels.

Use corrosion coupons to
determine localized and general
corrosion rates and the presence
of organic colonies.

Use UT wall thickness
inspection to measure wall loss
and determine corrosion rates.
Based on the observed corrosion
rates, determine whether the existing
chlorination and biociding processes
are functining efciently.

Select residual chlorine level,
bacterial population (either planktonic
or sessile or both), and biociding as
corrosion KPIs.
Oxygen Review design parametersgeometry,
material selection, corrosion allowance,
internal coating type, internal cladding
type, etc.

Review chemical treatment parameters
chemical type, treatment type (i.e., batch
or continuous), frequency, concentration,
injection location, etc.
Use oxygen probes/monitors to
measure the dissolved oxygen
concentration downstream of DA
towers and oxygen scavenger
injection point.

Use corrosion coupons to
determine localized and general
corrosion rates.

Use UT wall thickness inspection
to measure wall loss and
determine corrosion rate.
Based on the observed corrosion
rates, determine whether the
deaeration process is functioning
efciently.

Select oxygen concentration in the
deaerated seawater phase as a
corrosion KPI.
Erosion-corrosion Review design parametersgeometry,
material selection, corrosion allowance,
etc.

Review the ow velocity for copper-
nickel alloy sections.

Ensure that lters are in place to remove
any suspended solids and macro fouling.
In case of frequent failures within
the copper-nickel alloy sections,
determine if the ow velocity is
higher than the maximum
threshold velocity for such alloys.
During corrosion coupon retrievals,
check for grooving or erosion signs
on the retrieved coupons and then
determine if the identied erosion
rate is acceptable.
to improve a SWI systems integrity from
a corrosion management standpoint.
This table also illustrates the link between
any of the aforementioned three integrity
threats, the three CM elements, and the
proposed CM-related activities. The
recommendations can be grouped into
fve main categories:
Integrity Review
An integrity review enables the corro-
sion engineer to determine the inspec-
tion, mitigation, and monitoring require-
ments based on the design, operational,
and integrity parameters. The outcome
of the integrity review process will help
to determine existing gaps in the inspec-
tion, mitigation, and monitoring strate-
gies. Shortcomings can then be ad-
dressed and corrected. Furthermore, the
review will provide one with a compre-
hensive list of activities that have to be
carried out (mostly on a regular basis) to
maintain and improve integrity manage-
ments for the SWI system concerned.
This activity list is often referred to as the
Corrosion Control Matrices docu-
ment, which provides the backbone for
any future key performance indicator
August 2009 MP.indd 71 7/27/09 11:15 AM
72 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE August 2009
C H E MI C A L T R E AT ME N T Corrosion Management for Seawater Injection Systems
(KPI) system. For more information on
integrity review process and its products,
please refer elsewhere.
1-2
Corrosion Key Performance
Indicator System
A corrosion KPI system should be an
indispensable tool in the regular perfor-
mance monitoring and the effectiveness
assessment of any seawater treatment
process.
1-3
A KPI system enables the cor-
rosion engineer to instantly identify the
extent and magnitude of any potential
shortcomings in the seawater treatment
process. The system also improves the
corrosion engineers supervision over
critical activities and identifes the indi-
viduals responsible for these activities.
Any incompliance(s) identifed through
the corrosion KPI system can further
streamline the relevant inspection and
monitoring activities/strategies. For more
detailed information on how to deter-
mine, calculate, and report corrosion
KPIs, please refer elsewhere.
3

Enumeration of
Bacterial Populations
Bacterial enumeration on some assets
could often be erratic or incorrect. Fur-
thermore, the enumeration process fails
to assess the impact and effectiveness of
the biociding activity on the bacterial
activity and population on a long-term
basis. This could be achieved by having
in place an improved procedure for re-
moving the sidestream studs on a regular
basis for sessile sampling processes. Such
a procedure should specify that some
studs have to be removed less frequently
(than the normal ones that are removed,
normally on a weekly basis) and prefer-
ably on a monthly, three-month, and
six-month basis. This method of stud
removal will enable the corrosion engi-
neer to identify or determine the long-
term effects (or the effectiveness) of regu-
lar biociding (e.g., on a weekly basis) on
the bacterial growth and population.
Thereafter, the responsible chemist or the
corrosion engineer can determine
whether the incumbent biocide treatment
has been effective or whether it requires
improvement in the form of changing the
chemical, injection frequency, concentra-
tion, etc. Furthermore, it is strongly rec-
ommended to carry out an independent
annual bacterial survey by a specialist
third party. This will provide the chemist
or the corrosion engineer with a second
set of data that has been produced (alleg-
edly) by a more professional body in the
feld of MIC and bacterial enumeration.
Corrosion Coupons
Field experience has demonstrated
that corrosion rate (or online) probes re-
quire regular servicing and cleaning,
which makes them an expensive choice.
Fouling and short circuiting of online
corrosion probes is another issue that
makes them less desirable. On the con-
trary, corrosion coupons are easier to
maintain and dont need any regular
servicing and cleaning, only retrieval
when corrosion rate information is re-
quired. Corrosion coupons could also
provide information on both general and
localized corrosion rates, organic or bac-
terial presence, and erosion. Further-
more, taking bacterial samples from them
could help to determine bacterial popula-
tions per unit surface area. Such improve-
ments in the quality and quantity of
bacterial information could in turn help
to further optimize both the chlorination
and biociding activities on a regular basis.
Ultrasonic Testing Wall
Thickness Inspections
While corrosion coupons could pro-
vide accurate general and localized cor-
rosion rates, it is also strongly recom-
mended to carry out UT wall thickness
inspection on different areas of the SWI
system based on the available risk-based
inspection scope. The generated corro-
sion rate (and remaining life) information
would supplement those gathered from
the corrosion coupons and act as a second
source of useful integrity data. Such UT
inspections could also be highly useful in
measuring corrosion rates within the exist-
ing deadleg areas in the SWI system where
the risk of failure (due to a synergy between
MIC and under deposit corrosion mecha-
nisms) is higher.
Conclusions and
Recommendations
MIC, dissolved oxygen, and erosion are
the three main integrity threats to SWI
systems. The majority of failures are either
CE-based or CM-related. The latter is di-
vided into the following three categories:
Failure to perform an integrity review
and to determine the associated cor-
rosion control matrix
Failure to enumerate the bacterial
population correctly
Failure to use a corrosion KPI to
monitor and assess the seawater treat-
ment performance and effectiveness
on a regular basis
Accordingly, various CM-related ac-
tivities have been proposed to improve
SWI integrity. Such activities are divided
into fve main categories:
Perform integrity reviews.
Create and use a corrosion KPI
system.
Enumerate the bacterial population.
Use corrosion coupons.
Perform UT wall thickness in spections.
References
1 A. Morshed, Offshore Assets: From
Corrosion Engineering to Corrosion
Management, MP 46, 10 (2007): p. 34.
2 A. Morshed, Corrosion Management for
Oil and Gas Assets, MP 47, 8 (2008): p. 54.
3 A. Morshed, Improving Asset Corrosion
Management Using KPIs, MP 47, 5 (2008):
p. 50.
ALI MORSHED is the principal corrosion engineer at
Production Services Network (PSN), Wellheads Place,
Dyce, Aberdeen, AB21 7GB, U.K., e-mail: ali.morshed@
psnworld.com. He has years of experience protecting
oil and gas assets, specializing in producing asset-
specic CM systems. He received a Ph.D. grant from BP
to conduct research on corrosion of carbon steel sweet
oil transfer pipelines (1997-2001), has an M.S. degree
in corrosion engineering materials from Imperial
College (London, 1997), and has authored several
publications.
The water industrys corrosion conference without the travel!
For more information or to register, visit www.nace.org/watercorr
Stop Water Leaks
from Your
Computer

A Four Part Water Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Web Series
September 15, 2009 Types and risk of corrosion related failures in water
and wastewater infrastructure
October 13, 2009 Failed water pipeline case study: The investigation
and development of a detailed asset preservation program
November 10, 2009 Cost/benet analysis of corrosion control programs
December 15, 2009 What to do now: Training and industry resources to
develop a successful asset management program
August 2009 MP.indd 72 7/27/09 11:15 AM