SPE 168065

Monitoring of Downhole Corrosion: An Overview

Yahya T. Al-Janabi, R&D Center, Saudi Aramco, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Saudi Arabia section Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 19–22 May 2013.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract

Wet sour crude oil wells usually require minor attention to minimize or prevent corrosion damage of the
production tubulars and well casings. These wells contain, in addition to crude oil, water, salt, and
variable quantities of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon dioxide (CO2). In this paper, an overview of
downhole corrosion is presented. This includes corrosion mechanisms, corrosion monitoring techniques,
corrosion inhibition, and field applications along with examples. The main mechanisms contributing to
downhole corrosion are classified into electrochemical, chemical and mechanical. Chemical corrosion
attack is one of the major players in the case of maturing wells. Relevant corrosion monitoring
techniques are then discussed. These techniques provide either direct or indirect measurements of
corrosion rates (CRs). In case of existing wells, a basic downhole corrosion monitoring program should
include the following techniques as a minimum: (a) wet chemical analysis, e.g., iron counts, (b) metal
loss corrosion coupons, and (c) electronic corrosion probes, e.g., electrical resistance (ER) probes. The
three common corrosion control strategies are briefly discussed, namely: materials selection, coatings,
and chemical inhibition. Finally, three examples of field applications are presented. In these examples,
different corrosion monitoring techniques were employed depending on the type of corrosion
mechanism and the selected corrosion control strategy.

Key Words: Downhole corrosion, corrosion mechanisms, corrosion monitoring techniques, corrosion
evaluation tools, downhole corrosion inhibition

INTRODUCTION

In the past, many wet sour crude oil wells required minor attention to minimize or prevent corrosion
damage of the production tubulars and well casings (Garcia et al. 2013). These wells contained, in
addition to crude oil, low water cuts, salt, and relatively high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
and carbon dioxide (CO2). Under downhole conditions, iron sulfide (FeS) is the dominant product of the
corrosion reaction of carbon steel and H2S (Smith and Pakalapati 2004):

Fe + H2S = FeS + H2
iron hydrogen sulfide iron sulfide hydrogen

FeS forms a layer on the interior surface of the production tube, which in many cases serves as a
protective barrier preventing further corrosion of the tubular goods (Choi 2009). Classically, chemical
2 SPE 168065

treatment, if any, would be required at start-up. Once the protective iron sulfide layer was formed,
production tubing could last for years without the need for chemical treatment or material upgrade
(Moosavi et al. 2008).

As wells mature, however, production tubes fail mainly by localized corrosion due to increased water
cuts and salt contents. Corrosion monitoring is an essential tool for field engineers to take the proper
corrosion preventive measures. Two producers, A and B, were cited in the literature (Powell and Islam
2004) where producer A maintained close communication between the corrosion monitoring team and
the corrosion control team, while producer B either didn’t have a robust corrosion monitoring program
or the link between the two teams was lacking. As a consequence, producer A kept leak failures under
control and minimized their occurrences tremendously. On the other hand, the number of leaks at
producer B facilities kept growing with time, Fig. 1. This demonstrates clearly the importance of a
corrosion monitoring program, and the importance of a strong communication with the corrosion control
team (Goodfellow and Barr 2001).

In this paper, an overview of downhole corrosion will be presented. This will include corrosion
mechanisms, which are known to be active downhole monitoring techniques of downhole corrosion,
downhole corrosion inhibition, and field applications.

DOWNHOLE CORROSION MECHANISMS

Selecting the appropriate corrosion monitoring technique(s) will depend on the type of corrosion taking
place downhole. Several corrosion mechanisms have been identified and these are broadly divided into
electrochemical, chemical, and mechanical (Watfa 1991). The well type has to be considered when
determining the active corrosion mechanism. There are five types of wells: (1) Producing oil wells, (2)
Producing gas wells, (3) Gas injection wells, (4) Water injection wells, and (5) Water supply wells
(Weeter 1982).

Electrochemical corrosion mechanisms require the presence of an anode, cathode, metallic conducting
path and an electrolyte. In the case of downhole corrosion, the anode/cathode areas could co-exist on the
same or different joints of the production tubulars and casing. On the same joint the different areas could
arise from induced variations in the surface. Examples are a scratched surface, surfaces covered by a
corrosion product film, and microscopic variations introduced during the steel manufacturing process.
The metallic path would be the production tubing or casing. The electrolyte would be the formation
water. The corrosivity of the electrolyte would depend on the salt content, mainly chlorides. The forms
of electrochemical corrosion that are seen in the field are galvanic, crevice (differential aeration), pitting,
and intergranular. Galvanic corrosion is the most common while pitting corrosion is the most damaging
(Smith and Pakalapati 2004).

In the case of chemical corrosion mechanisms, and as the name implies, a corrosive chemical is
involved. The chemical could be coming from within or could be added intentionally or unintentionally.
Examples of chemicals coming from within are organic acids, like acetic acid. Stimulating acids and
completion fluids are examples of corrosive chemicals that are added intentionally. These chemicals
could attack the production tubing/casing if the latters are not properly protected. Attack by corrosive
gases, like H2S and CO2, falls under this category. These are further divided into sour or H2S corrosion
and sweet or CO2 corrosion (Kvarekval et al. 2003). In the case of sour corrosion, different quantities of
CO2 will also be present. In contrast, there are downhole environments that contain CO2 only. These
corrosive gases, also called acid gases, come along with the crude oil or the hydrocarbon gas streams.
There are instances where H2S is produced by the bacteria in the crude or the bacteria coming with
SPE 168065 3

injected water. These are examples of souring of a sweet well/reservoir (Al-Rasheedi et al. 1999). In all
of these cases, H2S will attack the production tubing/casing.

The reaction of sour corrosion includes the following steps:

H2S ' H+ + HS― (1st dissociation reaction)

HS― ' H+ + S2― (2nd dissociation reaction)

Fe  Fe2+ + 2e― (anodic/oxidation reaction)

Fe2+ + S2―  FeS  (precipitation of FeS is common)

H+ + e―  (cathodic/reduction reaction)

(adsorbed H-atom is absorbed)

+  H2  (recombination reaction)

Hydrogen damage is caused by hydrogen atoms, which are formed above in the step before last. The
produced hydrogen atoms are first adsorbed onto the steel surface. In the presence of an FeS layer, the
last recombination reaction is slowed down allowing adsorbed hydrogen atoms to be absorbed into the
steel matrix. Hydrogen atoms would diffuse and would either permeate through or will be trapped inside
if it encounters a trapping site. Trapping sites could be an inhomogeneity in the steel matrix like a void
or a dislocation. Trapped hydrogen atoms would recombine and cause blistering or cracking of the steel
structure. The amount of permeated hydrogen atoms could be measured and could be correlated with
H2S reactivity and the effectiveness of chemical inhibitors (Al-Janabi et al. 1995).

Another highly corrosive chemical is oxygen, O2, which sometimes is injected downhole unintentionally
during nitrogen gas lifting process.

The third mechanism experienced downhole is mechanical in nature. The first form is stress corrosion
where the anode and cathode are of the same metal but are different due to applied or residual stresses.
Usually the stressed area becomes the anode where the oxidation reaction is accelerated. The other form
is erosion corrosion where solid particles, e.g., sand, erode the protective film exposing the underlying
surface. The fresh surface becomes an active anode and would undergo further oxidation reactions.

The aforementioned corrosion mechanisms could be monitored by observing variations on the

tubing/casing inside diameter and their wall thicknesses; formation of holes, pits, and cracks; indicators
of metal losses and mechanical wear, indicators of an increase in corrosion activity by, for example,
performing elemental analysis, indicators of scale formation and buildup and the initiation of microbial
activity. The suitable corrosion monitoring technique or techniques can be selected depending on the
type of corrosion mechanism and the relevant indicators.

CORROSION MONITORING TECHNIQUES

Selection of the appropriate corrosion monitoring technique would depend on the downhole well
4 SPE 168065

conditions and the type of suspected corrosion mechanism. Downhole conditions are usually
characterized by high temperature, high pressure, relatively high velocity, aggressive fluids, high
corrosivity, and being inaccessible. The focus in this paper will be on internal corrosion. Corrosion on
the external surfaces and means to prevent them have been discussed elsewhere (Al-Ghasham et al.
2005).

Current corrosion monitoring techniques have been included and discussed in NACE International
Report 3T199. Also, a survey on corrosion techniques commonly used in industry was conducted in
2001-2002 and has been recently published (Papavinasam et al. 2012). The survey covered 47 oil and
gas producers from Canada, the U.S., Argentina, Australia, Belgium, India, Iran, South Korea, South
Africa, and Venezuela.

Measurement Techniques

Corrosion monitoring techniques provide either direct or indirect measurements of corrosion rates
(CRs). Direct measurement techniques are further subdivided into intrusive and non-intrusive. Intrusive
techniques are in direct contact with the corrosive environment while non-intrusive are not. Indirect
corrosion measurement techniques are also subdivided into online and off-line techniques. Online
measurement techniques provide immediate responses of the service parameters, while analyses for
example in the lab are conducted off-line in the other subcategory.

The discussion below will be limited to techniques that have been or could be used to monitor downhole
corrosion. Metal loss coupon, electrical resistance (ER), and visual inspection all belong to the
subcategory direct intrusive physical measurement techniques. In these techniques physical changes are
observed. The corrosion coupons are placed in the actual corrosive environment. CRs are calculated by
measuring the mass of the metal coupon before and after, and recording the time elapsed while the
coupons are in direct contact with the corrosive fluids. This technique is commonly used in the oil and
gas industry for its simplicity and representativeness. It allows determination of both general and pitting
CRs. Direct performance correlations are possible if the coupons are machined from the actual
production tubing/casing material. For meaningful CR values, the coupons are usually left in the system
for three months or more. At the beginning of a chemical inhibition program, the coupons could be kept
for a period of about three months to decide on the treatment protocol. Longer periods of six months or a
year could be selected once the corrosion inhibition program is well established. For shorter periods of
time, ER probes could be used. Mass variations as a function of time are monitored in ER probes by
measuring variations in the ER of a test filament. CRs are calculated and continuously recorded as a
function of time. Usually a combination of metal loss coupons and ER probes are prescribed for a new
corrosion inhibition program. The ER probes are used to record the immediate response due to chemical
or dosage changes. The metal loss coupons are used to monitor the long-term performance. The
accuracy of both techniques, i.e., metal loss coupons and ER probes, is in the range of ±1 mpy.

Linear polarization resistance (LPR), electrochemical noise (ECN), and coupled multielectrode array
(CMA) belong to the subcategory of direct intrusive electrochemical measurement techniques. An
electrically conductive media is required in the case of LPR, i.e., a continuous water phase. Corrosion
could be monitored in a nonconductive media using ECN and CMA, and the previously discussed ER
technique. Examples of nonconductive media are a water-in-oil mixture where the continuous phase is
oil, and a gas phase. LPR and ER techniques measure general CRs, while ECN and CMA can also
measure the pitting tendency of a corrosive media (Goodfellow and Barr 2001).

The list of direct non-intrusive measurement techniques applicable to downhole corrosion includes:
ultrasonic testing — thickness measurement, radiography testing, electromagnetic-eddy current testing,
SPE 168065 5

and electrical field mapping.

There are many techniques that fall under the indirect online measurement subcategory and these
include:

• Hydrogen monitoring.
• Monitoring of corrosion potential.
• Analyzing the water chemistry parameters like pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen.
• Fluid detection like the follow regime and velocity.
• Monitoring of process parameters, which include pressure, temperature, and dew point.

Other techniques in this subcategory include deposit monitoring of fouling and external monitoring
using thermography.

Other important analytical techniques used in corrosion monitoring are analysis of the water chemistry,
e.g., metal ion analysis, residual inhibitor determination, chemical analysis of process samples, and
microbiological analysis. These all fall under the subcategory of indirect off-line measurement
techniques.

Downhole Corrosion Monitoring Techniques

Following are examples of corrosion monitoring techniques setup to withstand the harsh downhole
environments. The first example is the Downhole Corrosion Monitoring System (DCMS) by Rohrback
Cosasco. The DCMS uses an ER probe to monitor CRs downhole. The data is stored and retrieved once
the system is pulled out of the well. It has a limited lifetime as it is battery operated. It requires the use
of a wireline to be lowered to the required well depth. It is, therefore, expensive to be run on a routine
basis. It has been used a few times and has been recommended for specialized operations only. The
second example is the Concerto system by Intertek CAPCIS. The system allows both linear polarization
and ECN measurements. It also requires wireline operations to be lowered to the target depth, which
makes it expensive to be used on a routine basis. Two systems that employ metal loss coupons are the
McMurry-Macco™ Coupon Carriers from Weatherford and the Downhole Sucker Rod Corrosion
Monitoring Tool by CorrScience. These two systems provide a single CR value, which is a feature
inherent to metal loss coupons. In addition, both systems require wireline operations. Electronic probes
provide CRs as a function of time.

Above-Surface Corrosion Monitoring Techniques

Since performing downhole corrosion measurements on existing wells is expensive, the next possible
option is to do it above surface at the wellhead or on a flow line, for example. The conditions at a flow
line close to the wellhead could be easily correlated with the conditions downhole. The measured CR
values are, therefore, directly related to the corrosivity level downhole. In this case and in addition to
corrosion coupons, an electronic system is usually recommended. Several systems are available
commercially, including Microcorr by Rohrback Cosasco, Ceion by Cormon, and the system by Metal
Samples. Other systems can also be installed above surface. Examples include sensors for wall thinning
measurements and for monitoring hydrogen permeation activity. Permasense is an external wireless
sensor for monitoring variations in wall thickness, and Hydrosteel by Ion Science is to measure
hydrogen permeation rate externally. In some cases, it is difficult to install corrosion monitoring systems
at the wellhead or on a flow line. In this situation, installing them on a side-stream might be the next
possible option. There are several limitations to this option and the operator must be aware of them for
6 SPE 168065

an accurate analysis of corrosion measurements. Such limitations might include reduction in the flow
line diameter and the impact on the flow regime. It could also impact the gas/liquid ratio of the stream.
In all of these systems, monitoring of temperature and pressure both downhole and above surface is
essential for the correlation step.

Corrosion Evaluation Tools

The systems previously discussed are different from corrosion evaluation tools typically used during
well workovers. Following are examples of the latter type (Watfa 1991). These include the
Multifrequency Electromagnetic Thickness Tool (METT) and the Multichannel Pipe Analysis Tool
(MPAT) and both are electromagnetic based. The METT estimates metal loss and the MPAT is used for
hole detection. The next example is the Corrosion Protection Evaluation Tool (CPET), which is electric
based and measures resistance and obtains inner-casing measurements only. The Cement Evaluation
Tool (CET) is acoustic based and measures casing thickness. The Multi-Finger Caliber Tool (TGS) is
mechanical based and measures small anomalies in the inner-casing wall. The last example is the PS
Platform production logging platform, which has several sensors to characterize downhole flow regime.

In summary, performing downhole corrosion measurements — if cost-effective — would be the first

choice, especially with new well installations. In case of existing wells, a basic downhole corrosion
monitoring program should include the following techniques as a minimum:

• Wet chemical analysis (e.g., iron counts).

• Corrosion coupons (90-180 days exposure cycles).
• Electronic corrosion probes (e.g., ER probes for short-term readings).

DOWNHOLE CORROSION INHIBITION

Adopting effective corrosion control strategy is essential to compliment an understanding of downhole

corrosion mechanisms and the selection of an appropriate corrosion monitoring program. Depending on
the corrosivity level and the type of corrosion mechanisms, different downhole corrosion control
methods could be employed, which may differ considerably in cost (Weeter 1982). The three methods
commonly used in industry are materials selection, coatings, and chemical inhibition. The most
expensive method is the use of corrosion resistant alloys (CRAs) for new well completions. In the cost
estimates, however, reducing the number of production interruptions over the tubing/casing lifetime
should be integrated into the overall calculations. This might justify the initial high cost. Moreover, for
well installations in hard to reach locations like offshore fields, the use of CRAs could also be justified.
In terms of cost, the use of internal coatings comes next to CRAs. The extreme downhole environments,
however, restrict the number of coating systems, which could withstand those aggressive conditions. As
explained earlier, those conditions include high temperature, high pressure, high velocity, acid gases,
and sand particles. In addition, some of the corrosion evaluation tools previously described, like caliber
logs, could scratch the coating layer. Consequently, the use of internal coatings is usually supplemented
with corrosion inhibition. More on corrosion inhibition will be discussed in the next paragraph. Finally,
the use of nonmetallic lining on carbon steel tubing has been presented lately (Sharif et al. 2012). This
approach could become more attractive in the future.

So far, the most cost-effective method for downhole corrosion control of existing well completions is
corrosion inhibition. There are several techniques for downhole corrosion inhibition and each has its
merits and drawbacks. Continuous treatment via a treater string is considered the best method for an
effective corrosion inhibition program. This would be feasible if a treater string already exists since
SPE 168065 7

installing a new one is costly. A treater string is a small diameter stainless steel tube, which runs from
the wellhead all the way to the depth of the packer and is used to deliver corrosion inhibitor. For existing
wells, which doesn’t have a treater string already installed, other treatment methods should be
considered. In a squeeze treatment, the corrosion inhibitor is squeezed into the formation and is allowed
to flow back with time. This method has the drawbacks of formation plugging and premature drop in
corrosion inhibitor concentration due to chemical losses into the formation. Batch treatment is the third
method, which has the drawback of using excessive amounts of the corrosion inhibitor. An improved
version of batch treatment is the tubing displacement method. A reduced amount of chemical is used
compared to the batch treatment. The chemical pill is displaced in the tube to the depth of the packer
using dead crude. The tubing displacement method came next in performance to the continuous
treatment method. Other corrosion inhibitor methods with limited applications make use of artificial lift
systems and umbilicals. Gumming and valve plugging are common challenges with the use of artificial
lift systems.

FIELD APPLICATIONS

Downhole corrosion criteria must be established for a successful corrosion monitoring and control
programs. NACE International has issued a recommended practice, NACE RP-0775, which takes a
conservative approach and recommends that CRs be kept below 1.0 mpy (mils per year) for general
corrosion and less than 5.0 mpy for localized (pitting) corrosion.

There are general tips for an effective field application. It is essential to install access fittings for
corrosion monitoring and establish baseline conditions before initiating a corrosion inhibition program.
The preferred location of corrosion monitoring points is at the wellhead to provide indications of any
downhole corrosion. The next possible location is at the flow line if the conditions in the line can be
correlated with downhole conditions. The most critical monitoring point would be located at the end of
the production flow line; immediately upstream of the point where the process fluids are either (a)
separated at a gathering station, or (b) merged into the production stream from other wells. Access
fittings should be positioned properly avoiding being in contact with nonrepresentative environments. It
is also highly recommended to inject corrosion inhibitors as far upstream as possible. As a first choice,
the inhibition should be continuously injected, rather than being applied in batches. Typically, the
treatment rates are field tested through a series of small steps, such as 25, 50, 75, 100, etc., parts per
million (ppm), based on the volumes of produced water. If continuous treatment is not possible, the next
choice would be tubing displacement. Several field cases will be discussed.

Case# 1: Corrosion Monitoring Using Corrosion Coupons

Metal loss coupons were used to select and optimize suitable materials for the completion of the lower
part of gas producing wells operated by Total E&P Indonesie, Balikpapan, Indonesia (Gunaltun et al.
2011). The gas-condensate field has approximately 400 producing wells. The corrosion coupons were
machined from the candidate materials carbon steel, 3% Cr, and 13% Cr and were placed downhole.
These gas wells are sweet with typical conditions of: 1,000 to 3,000 ppm HCO3―; 15 to 1,000 ppm
organic acids; 3 to 120 m3/d water production; and 2 to 15 m/s bottom-hole velocities. More details on
the wells could be found in the paper. The corrosion coupons were retrieved from the wells after 6
months and were analyzed for both general and localized corrosion. CRs were found to be very low for
the three materials. CRs of carbon steel coupons were found to be around 20% higher than those of 3%
Cr coupons. Still the overall CRs were below 0.1 mm/y. Based on these measurements, the operator
elected to use CS for the completion of all wells with a robust corrosion monitoring program.
8 SPE 168065

Case# 2: Corrosion Monitoring Using DCMS

The DCMS by Rohrback Cosasco was used to determine the effective lifetime of corrosion inhibition
treatments at the Sabriya field, north of Kuwait (Al-Shamari et al. 2011). The production wells have
high water cuts in the range of 30% to 40%, and a CO2 content of 2% to 3%. Baseline CRs and fluid
chemistry data were first collected from the wells prior to inhibitor treatment over a 5 to 6 week period.
Downhole tubing displacement was the recommended corrosion inhibitor treatment method. Treatment
was repeated quarterly (every 90 days). In addition to DCMS, corrosion coupons were used both
downhole and at the flow line for corrosion inhibitor evaluation. Long-term coupon exposure is used to
confirm treatment effectiveness. Corrosion coupons left for 90 days were the main monitoring method
for CRs. Electronic probes, such as ER probes, were installed above the surface at the flow line and
were used for continuous monitoring to observe any transient behavior. The two methods of corrosion
coupons and ER probes complement each other. The inhibitors performance was evaluated based on
corrosion coupons data. The treatment rate was optimized using ER probes. This was achieved by
varying the concentration in steps of 25 ppm, followed by steps of 10 ppm. Corrosion inhibitor field
testing was carried out for another 5 to 6 weeks to confirm performance of the selected chemical and
dosage rate.

Case# 3: Corrosion Monitoring Using Electrochemical Hydrogen Patch Probes (HPP)

Electrochemical hydrogen patch probes (HPP) were used to evaluate the effectiveness of corrosion
inhibitors and for optimization of the dosage rate (Martin and French 1978). As explained earlier,
absorbed hydrogen atoms, , could cause blistering or cracking of the steel structure, i.e., tubes and
casing in this case. The amount of permeated hydrogen atoms, which pass through the walls of the tubes
or casings is an indication of H2S reactivity in the system. The more hydrogen atoms that pass through,
the more likely the tubing/casing will develop blisters/cracks. Therefore, the extent of reduction of
permeated hydrogen atoms is an indication of how effective the chemical is in preventing
blistering/cracking damages. HPPs were installed at the flow lines of two wells. The paper didn’t
mention the location of these wells. The first was of a gas well that produces about 10 MMcf/D of
0.15% H2S and 20+ % CO2 gas with about 1,000 B/D of condensate, and 150 B/D of 100,000 ppm total
dissolved solids brine. Downhole temperature and pressure were not given in the paper but the flow line
conditions were 125 °F and 1,000 psi. The second flow line was of a gas well that produces about 4
MMcf/D with several percent of H2S, 40% CO2, 250 B/D of condensate, and approximately 5 B/D of
brackish water. Again, downhole temperature and pressure were not given in the paper but the flow line
conditions were 140 °F and 2,000 psi. In addition to HPP, iron counts method was used, which gave
similar trends as HPP.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, an overview of downhole corrosion was presented. This included corrosion mechanisms,
corrosion monitoring techniques, corrosion inhibition, and field applications along with examples. The
main mechanisms contributing to downhole corrosion were classified into electrochemical, chemical,
and mechanical. Chemical corrosion attack is one of the major players in the case of maturing wells.
Relevant corrosion monitoring techniques were then discussed. These techniques provide either direct or
indirect measurements of CRs. In the case of existing wells, a basic downhole corrosion monitoring
program should include the following techniques as a minimum:

• Wet chemical analysis, e.g., iron counts.

• Metal loss corrosion coupons.
• Electronic corrosion probes, e.g., ER probes.
SPE 168065 9

The three common corrosion control strategies were briefly discussed, namely: materials selection,
coatings, and chemical inhibition. Finally, several examples of field applications were presented. In
these examples, different corrosion monitoring techniques were employed depending on the type of
corrosion mechanism and the selected corrosion control strategy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to thank Saudi Aramco for permission to publish this paper.

REFERENCES

Al-Ghasham, Y., Catte, D. and Al-Haji, A. 2005. Saudi Aramco Integrated Analysis of Downhole
Corrosion Logs to Investigate Casing Leaks. Paper SPE 93184 presented at the 14th SPE Middle
East Oil & Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain, 12-15 March.

Al-Janabi, Y.T., Lewis, A.L. and Oweimreen, G.A. 1995. Electrochemical Hydrogen Permeation
Studies of Several Mono- and Diamines. Journal of the Electrochemical Society 142 (9): 2865-
72.

Al-Rasheedi, S., Kalli, C., Thrasher, D., et al. 1999. Prediction and Evaluation of the Impact of
Reservoir Souring in North Kuwait, a Case Study. Paper SPE 53164 presented at the Middle East
Oil Show and Conference, Bahrain, 20-23 February.

Al-Shamari, A., Al-Sulaiman, S., Jarragh, A., et al. 2011. Efficacy of Downhole Corrosion Inhibitor
Treatment in Sweet Crude Producer Wells. Paper 11269 presented at the NACE International
Corrosion Conference, Houston, Texas, 13-17 March.

Choi, H. 2009. Materials Selection for Smart Well Completions in Conjunction with Expandable Casing
Technology. Paper SPE 126090 presented at the SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical
Symposium, al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 9-11 May.

Garcia, J., Yateem, K., Sethi, N., et al. 2013. Successful Application of a New Electromagnetic
Corrosion Tool for Well Integrity Evaluation in Old Wells Completed with Reduced Diameter
Tubular. Paper IPTC16997 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference,
Beijing, China, 26-28 March.

Goodfellow, R. and Barr, E. 2001. A Case Study of the Design and Operation of High CO2 Production
with H2S. Paper 01047 presented at the NACE International Corrosion Conference, Houston,
Texas, 11-16 March.

Gunaltun, Y., Kermani, B., Samosir, T., et al. 2011. Completion Tubing Optimization Meeting the
Challenge Through Prediction and Operational Experience. Paper 11064 presented at the NACE
International Corrosion Conference, Houston, Texas, 13-17 March.

Kvarekval, J., Nyborg, R. and Choi, H. 2003. Formation of Multilayer Iron Sulfide Films during High
Temperature CO2/H2S Corrosion of Carbon Steel. Paper No. 03339 presented at the NACE
International Corrosion Conference, San Diego, California, 16-20 March.
10 SPE 168065

Martin, R. and French, E. 1978. Corrosion Monitoring in Sour Systems Using Electrochemical
Hydrogen Patch Probes. J. Pet Tech, November, pp. 1566-1570. SPE-6657.

Moosavi, A., Rumash, K. and Kadri, M. 2008. Material Selection for Downhole Sour Environments.
Paper SPE 118011 presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 3-6 November.

NACE Report 3T199, Techniques for Monitoring Corrosion and Related Parameters in Field
Applications. Houston, Texas: NACE International.

Papavinasam, S., Doiron, A. and Revie, R.W. 2012. Industry Survey on Techniques to Monitor Internal
Corrosion. Materials Performance 51 (2): 34-38.

Powell, D. and Islam, M. 2004. Monitoring Experiences Contrasting the Practices of Two Crude Oil
Producers. Paper No. 04441 presented at NACE International Corrosion Conference, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 28 March - 1 April.

Sharif, Q.J., Esmail, O.J., Radhakrishnan, G., et al. 2012. Experience with Fiberglass (GRE) Lined
Carbon Steel Tubular for Corrosion Protection for Oil Production Applications. Paper SPE
160236 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
8-10 October.

Smith, S.N. and Pakalapati, R.S. 2004. Thirty Years of Downhole Corrosion Experience at Big
Escambia Creek: Corrosion Mechanisms and Inhibition. Paper 04744 presented at the NACE
International Corrosion Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 March - 1 April.

Watfa, M. 1991. Downhole Casing Corrosion Monitoring and Interpretation Techniques to Evaluate
Corrosion in Multiple Casing Strings. SPE Prod Eng, August, pp. 283-290. SPE-17931-P.

Weeter, R.F. 1982. Downhole Corrosion - Prevention and Treatment. Paper SPE 9984 presented at the
International Petroleum Exhibition and Technical Symposium, Beijing, China, 17-24 March.
SPE 168065 11

Fig. 1—Comparing number of leaks/spills per year for Producer A and B for three consecutive years (Powell and Islam 2004).