Paper No.

10466
Internal Corrosion Asset Preservation Methodology
Case Study

Joe Pikas
David Richardson
Technical Toolboxes Consulting Ltd.

ABSTRACT
This paper will provide the understanding for the preservation of assets from the effects of
internal corrosion. A pre-screening for the mitigation of internal pipeline leaks at upstream and
mid-stream pipeline facilities takes in consideration the internal safety aspects because of past
leaks, elevation changes where liquids tend to collect in low spots or traps.

The primary goal in the screening process of large piping networks is to determine if corrosive
environments exist while using a minimal amount of data to mitigate these leak risks to maintain
production without reduction.

Let’s take a case with a network of approximately 1,000 gas production wells/pipelines in this
study. Criteria were developed for mitigation and risk reduction strategies that includes
inhibition, cleaning pigs, in-line-inspection (ILI) and repair. In addition, minimal time/information
was required to apply the criteria utilizing a pattern recognition methodology conducted by an
experienced corrosion engineer.

Once the pipelines of concern were identified as a threat (approximately 16%), the study then
utilizes a multi-phase hydraulic simulator that integrates corrosion analysis from a
comprehensive set of models to predict, identify and assess the location of highest likely risk and
damage. The remaining 84% did not need any additional assessments using hydraulic simulation.

©2018 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
1
 Key performance indicators (KPIs) were used to determine detrimental flow conditions. These
indicators include predicted corrosion rates (influenced by total dissolved solids (TDS), flow
regime, microbial induced corrosion, organic acids, temperature, glycol, etc.), remaining pipe life,
water accumulation, etc.).

KEYWORDS
Internal Corrosion, Pre-screening, Risk Assessment, Threats, Mitigation, Management
Preservation of Assets
INTRODUCTION
This type of study has been verified with other studies, but more importantly to actual field
conditions. Assessing and locating internal corrosion has been a challenge with piping systems
that have water hold up areas. This is because most monitoring tools are not located where
the corrosion occurs. Typically, monitoring tools such as coupons or resistance probes are
located at areas of accessibility rather than in required areas. In addition, these devices need to
be placed where they will not impede the travel of cleaning pigs and other operational devices.
Since these tools can only monitor a local area inside of the pipeline, the data gathered may not
be representative of the remaining pipeline. Therefore, predicting the threats using pre-
screening with minimal data to identify the threats is the first step. Once these areas of
concern have been identified, modeling is used to identify where internal corrosion is going to
occur. This requires information and data with the aqueous phase such as flow rates, acid
gases, sand, solids, MIC, temperature, pressure, etc.
WHERE IS THE WATER?
No water, no internal corrosion. Is there a significant risk? Where does the water accumulate
on the inside walls? How does it travel and how long? Cleaning pigs move the water down the
line as well as high flow rates, episodic upsets, shutdowns, startups, etc. It is well understood
that internal corrosion is likely to occur in production lines versus transmission lines. Predictive
models need to follow the water whatever, the causes.
Time and seasonal variations also play a factor along with the magnitude and distance where
the water accumulates. Additionally, water hold up areas such as road or water crossings, can
play a major role for internal corrosion to occur. Liquids tend to collect in low spots. If the
liquid velocity is low enough, the condensate and water will separate. The bottom of the pipe
will be water-wet and the most severe corrosion would be expected to occur in this area. The
predictive model should be able to determine the type of corrosion mechanism such as
localized pitting.
What are the influencing factors?

• Diameter of Pipe
• Temperature
©2018 by NACE International.
Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
2
 • Production Rates
• Liquid and Water Holdup
• Composition of Oil/Gas and Gas Oil Ratio (GOR)
• Ions such as Sulfates, Bicarbonate, Chlorides, Acetic Acid
• Iron Carbonate Scaling
Validation of the predictive model needs to be validated to the field conditions. This can be
done in some multiple ways such as:

• Laboratory
• Monitoring Tools
• Direct Examination
Dynamic conditions must be considered in the predictive modeling to account for changes with
time. Transient modeling then becomes important for more accurate prediction. Other effects,
such as erosion-corrosion, can occur above a certain velocity of the gas to cause erosion of the
pipe wall.
MIC prediction of the occurrence(s) of microbial attack and the operating conditions that set it
up. Biofilm formations are influenced by flow rates (stratified) and nutrient delivery, or water.
In addition, pH plays important role in the type of bacteria.
It should be noted that water plays the most important role through this entire process, from
where it accumulates, acidy, flow rates, pH, etc. Now, all we need to do is just follow the water
using predictive modeling.
WHICH CORROSION MODEL?
Predictive models must be field validated. The predictive model validation includes1:

• Historical information
• Location of corrosion (water accumulation)
• Monitoring data
• In-line inspection data
• Tolerances between model results and field data +/- 5%
• Criteria
Integration of hydraulic, multi-flow simulation modeling to the corrosion model is required.
Due to changing low-flow conditions and mixing from multiple fluid sources, consideration and
understanding of fluid flow dynamics it should address these new aggressive corrosion
environments. Must predict the following:

• Liquid and Water Accumulation

1
NACE International- 15835 Park Ten Place Houston, Texas
©2018 by NACE International.
Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
3
 • Internal Corrosion Threats
• Risk Reduction
• Mitigation
KPIs are used to determine detrimental flow conditions. These indicators include predicted
corrosion rates that are influenced by the various containments.
PIPELINE SIMULATION
First Step

The first step is to characterize the corrosive fluids that may enter the pipeline over operating
lifetime of the structure and the extent the fluids have been held within stagnant traps and not
be transported or systematically carried through the pipeline system. This will be evaluated as a
function of the following features that characterize the operation of the pipeline studied.
The density and the composition of the production fluids:

• Production volume history

• An accurate pipe diameter
• An accurate determination of Pipeline inclination angles (SHP file, or similar)

The following steady-state hydraulic profile was created using in-situ liquid fraction versus
distance as shown in figure 1.

• Water-film fraction profile

• Oil-film fraction profile

Figure 1: Pipeline Simulation Hydraulic Model with Elevation, Oil and Water Film Fraction

©2018 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
4
 The following steady state hydraulic profile in figure 2 was created for liquid film in days.

Figure 2: Pipeline Hydraulic Profile for Liquid Film

Second Step
The objective of this stage of the probability calculation is to identify specific locations along the
pipeline that may be most susceptible to the formation of detrimental corrosive environments
should water enter the pipeline.

The location(s) where the critical angle is exceeded for a given gas / water velocity is where
stagnant water hold-up areas will form if water condenses in the pipeline, enters as a free
phase during upsets, or is carried into the pipeline as production fluids.

If the critical inclination angle for a given production scenario is not exceeded at any location
along the pipeline route, water will not form detrimental corrosion traps, and the potential for
corrosion to occur is considered as insignificant.

The determination of the critical inclination angle necessary to encourage the accumulation of
stagnant water traps consider the relationship of the gas density and its velocity. The
calculation considers the magnitude of the shear forces to determine whether they are
substantial enough to move the water phase over each subsequent topographical feature or
whether the gravitational forces tending to work against the water movement forces the water
to accumulate at that those areas of concern as shown in figure 3.

©2018 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
5
 Figure 3: Water Hold-Up Severity with Stagnant Water Traps
A detailed liquid hold-up profile for the "Generic" pipeline. The graph confirms, with the use of
a detailed mechanistic pipeline model that water that enters the pipeline will remain local
within detrimental traps, with a spectrum of trap severity along the pipeline route; a
demonstration of why a "simplified" approach is not appropriate.
Third Step
Failure frequency has been calculated by means of first estimating the pitting corrosion rate for
the sites as established in Step 2. These corrosion rates will be based upon the following
assumptions:
• Water will accumulate in pipeline low areas which can result in corrosive environments.
• The pipeline is considered free from mitigation chemical treatments.

To generate pitting corrosion growth rates, a modification of the method developed by de

Waard, Milliams, and Dugstad has been used with consideration of actual operation versus
Steady-State conditions as shown in figure 4.

©2018 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
6
 Figure 4: - The corrosion rate Nomo-graph illustrates the maximum unmitigated corrosion
rate that will be expected to occur if free water or other corrosive fluids enter the pipeline
and remain within the pipeline for extended time.

Fourth Step

Establishing final corrosion rate (CR) profile with consideration of pipeline operations is shown
in figure 5. It should be noted that steady state conditions were achieved in 90 days. These CR
profiles can be the result of low points where water hold-up areas may occur.

©2018 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
7
 Figure 5: Maximum Possible Corrosion Rate 1.52 mm/year at Extended Exposure to Steady-
State Conditions at 90 Days.

Actual Corrosion Rate will be approximately 10 times lower than theoretical corrosion rate as
shown in figure 6 below:

Figure 6: Actual Corrosion Rate with Pigging Reduced – 90 Day Time to Steady-State does not
Achieve because Theoretical Corrosion Rate 1.52 mm/year never realized and Actual
Corrosion Rate due to water traps removed with pigging to 0.13 mm/year.

INTERNAL CORROSION PROCESS

Pre-Screening should focus only on the lines that have corrosion. This is a big cost saver in that
analysis only needs to be done on the lines and specific locations that are corroding.

©2018 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
8
 • Pre-Screening Tool which focus only on the lines that have corrosion. This is a big cost
saver in that analysis only needs to be done on the lines that are corroding.
• Risk Analysis indicating the degree of severity
o Water film travel time vs distance plot steady-state
o Water trap severity profile - steady-state
o Corrosion profile graphs non-steady state
• Mapping that displays the pipeline in map view with color coding where red indicates
high risk, yellow indicates medium risk and green indicates low risk.
• Profile Plots with length of pipe with multi-calculated parameters
• Reporting
o Triage – Prescreening
• Recommendations
o Risk Score and Mitigation Guidelines
o Risk Prioritization and Monitoring/Inspection
o Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
o Corrosion Mitigation Methods – Inhibition, Pigging, Monitoring and
Management of Assets

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Not all operating pipelines will experience corrosion in low water hold-up areas. However,
stagnant water hold-up areas are most vulnerable to pH lowering, corrosion pitting initiation
and possible growth to failure under the right conditions. Contact time with corrosive fluids
accentuates the corrosion rates in these critical areas. Using a pre-screening method allowed
the operator to focus only on the pipelines that had the highest risk and likelihood of internal
corrosion i.e. 16%. Once it has been established that internal corrosion is a threat, a steady-
state multiphase simulator is required only for those lines of concern. The power of a good
predictive modeling software simulation program is to calculate standard corrosion rates at
operating conditions along the pipeline using the deWaard and Millims pitting model. These
results must match actual operating conditions.
In conclusion, the pre-screening methodology allowed operator to establish that 84% of the
system experienced no detrimental corrosion while focusing on only on the areas with high
risk/threats with corrosive conditions. This process allowed a quick assessment and
documented process while focusing on the areas of highest risk. Using this methodology
establishes a true integrity (safety) management program while saving the stakeholders
millions of dollars in the preservation of these production assets.

©2018 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
9
 REFERENCES
1. Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) - 3141 Fairview Park Drive, Falls Church,
VA USA 22042
2. NACE International- 15835 Park Ten Place Houston, Texas 77084
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Richardson, David, “20161106 Q-ICDA, General Description, Corrosion Mitigation and
Technical Toolboxes, Calgary, AB, Canada
2. Pikas, Joe, “Direct Examination Results of High Strength versus Low Strength Steels,
Technical Toolboxes Consulting, Ltd. Houston, TX, USA
3. Grahmann, N. J. and Joe Pikas, “Corrosion Inhibition of a Wet Gas Pipeline – A Case
History”, Champion Technologies, Inc. and Technical Toolboxes, Houston, TX
4. Shelton, R. D. “Internal Corrosion Control of Pipelines”, Houston, TX

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
1. Richardson, David, Various Papers, Slides and Data, Technical Toolboxes Consulting Ltd.
Calgary, AB, Canada

©2018 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
10