Corrosion & Integrity MGMT

SPE-ATW Corrosion and Integrity Management: Are we Doing the Best we Can?
SPE Workshop Report

SANA Lisboa Park Hotel, Lisbon, Portugal
18-21 June 2007
Corrosion and Integrity

Management: Are we doing the best
we can?
Author - Peter Smith

Date 09/07/2007
1/81
Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 5
Day One Tuesday 19th June 2007................................................................. 6
Opening Address: 8.30-9.30............................................................................. 6
Presentation - Corrosion and Integrity Management: are we doing the best
we can? ......................................................................................................... 6
We have come along way since the early explorations in the offshore
industry. ..................................................................................................... 6
How far have we come in corrosion mitigation technology? ..................... 7
The overall corrosion community is performing very well ......................... 8
Where are we going wrong? ..................................................................... 9
Health and Safety Regulations.................................................................. 9
The Reality................................................................................................. 9
Media Criticism .......................................................................................... 9
What do we need to improve?................................................................... 9
Session 1: 9.30-12.30 Materials Selection & Integrity Management
Considerations in Design................................................................................ 10
Session 1 - Introduction (MS)...................................................................... 10
Presentation - Pipeline Corrosion and Integrity Management .................... 10
Discussion Period Use of Software in Corrosion Management ....... 11
Presentation Continued ....................................................................... 13
Discussion Period Corrosion Inhibitor Issues ................................... 13
Discussion Period Weld Corrosion Issues........................................ 14
Discussion Period Monitoring Methods ............................................ 15
Discussion Period Corrosion Damage Measurement ...................... 16
Presentation Meeting the Design Intent................................................... 18
Discussion Period Meeting the Design Intent................................... 18
Discussion Period Coatings and Insulation Issues........................... 19
Discussion Period Use of Corrosion Resistant Alloys ...................... 20
Discussion Period Design Standards ............................................... 21
Presentation Materials Selection and Integrity Management in the Design
Stage ........................................................................................................... 22
Discussion Period Inspection Issues ................................................ 22
Session 2: 13.30-15.30 Causes of Corrosion.............................................. 24
Presentation Causes of Corrosion ........................................................... 24
Discussion period CO2 and Organic Acid Corrosion Mechanisms... 25
Presentation continued ........................................................................ 26
Discussion Period H2S Corrosion Mechanism ................................. 27
2/81
Presentation Causes of Corrosion in Corrosion Resistant Alloys............ 28

Discussion Period CRAs.................................................................. 28
Presentation Corrosion under Insulation (CUI)........................................ 30
Discussion Period - CUI....................................................................... 30
Presentation Prediction Success ............................................................. 31
Discussion Period Corrosion Prediction ........................................... 31
Session 3: 16.00-18.00 Design of Corrosion Mitigation Strategies............. 33
Presentation Design of Corrosion Mitigation Strategies .......................... 33
Presentation Strategy Identification and Implementation ........................ 34
Pro-activity in identification:- ................................................................ 35
Presentation Design of corrosion Mitigation Strategies........................... 35
Discussion Period Corrosion Mitigation Strategies .......................... 35
Discussion Period Integrity Management ......................................... 37
Day Two Wednesday 21st June 2007.......................................................... 40
Session 4: 08.30-12.30 Implementation of Corrosion Mitigation Strategies.
........................................................................................................................ 40
Presentation Corrosion Mitigation Chemical Selection and Treatment ... 40
Discussion Period How Do We Select the Correct Inhibitor?........... 40
Discussion Period - How much inhibitor should we use?.................... 42
Discussion Period - How should inhibitor be applied? ........................ 45
Discussion Period - How do we know it is working? ........................... 45
Presentation Implementing SRB MIC Mitigation and Monitoring
Effectiveness ............................................................................................... 46
Discussion Period - Implementing SRB MIC Mitigation and Monitoring
Effectiveness........................................................................................ 47
Discussion Period - Implementing SRB MIC Mitigation and Monitoring
Effectiveness........................................................................................ 51
Session 5: 13.30-15.30 Performance Measurement................................... 53
Presentation Corrosion Performance Measurement ............................... 53
Discussion Period - Corrosion Performance Measurement ................ 53
Discussion Period - Corrosion Performance Measurement ................ 55
Discussion Period - Achieving target values ....................................... 56
Discussion Period Traffic lights and KPIs Overall ........................... 57
Discussion Period Performance Comparison................................... 58
Discussion Period Consequences of KPI Failure............................. 58
Presentation Legislative View on Corrosion Performance Measurement 59
3/81
Discussion Period Legislative View on Corrosion Performance

Measurement ....................................................................................... 59
Session 6: 16.00-17.30 Completing the Cycle ............................................ 60
Discussion Period Competency and Recruitment ............................ 61
Discussion Period Intelligent Pigging ............................................... 63
Discussion Period Inhibitors ............................................................. 64
Day Three Thursday 22nd June 2007 .......................................................... 66
Session 7: 09.00-13.00 The Way Forward. ................................................. 66
Workshop questions feedback............................................................. 66
Presentation The Use of Probabilistic Modelling ..................................... 66
Discussion Period Use of Tools for Corrosion Assessment ............. 66
Discussion Period Intelligent Pigging ............................................... 67
Discussion Period Techniques for Corrosion Assessment............... 68
Knowledge Transfer Joint industry projects: Operators View.................. 70
Discussion Period Knowledge Transfer............................................ 71
Knowledge Transfer Joint industry projects: Research Institutes View... 72
Discussion Period Knowledge Transfer and JIPs............................ 73
Regulatory Framework Guidance for Corrosion and Integrity Management
..................................................................................................................... 74
Discussion Period Guidance for Corrosion and Integrity Management
............................................................................................................. 76
Regulatory Framework Corrosion, Pipeline Integrity and US Federation
Regulation and Legislation.......................................................................... 76
Discussion Period - Corrosion, Pipeline Integrity and US Federation
Regulation and Legislation .................................................................. 78
Poster Presentations ...................................................................................... 80
Workshop Summary Are we Doing the Best we Can?................................ 81
4/81
Introduction
The notion of this report is to provide an overview of the presentations and
discussion sessions at workshop. The material in this report presents the
general information presented by speakers in each session and provides a
reference to the main discussion topics throughout the workshop. References
to the speakers during discussion periods have been provided where
possible. But it is important to note that questions and answers in this report
are not direct quotes.
This report follows a chronological structure synonymous with that of the
technical agenda issued at the workshop. A rearrangement in the schedule at
the workshop sees the presentation by Kirsten Oliver situated in Session 7 of
this report instead of session 5. The presentation from Andrew Duncan in
Session 7 has also been omitted. This was available as a handout at the
workshop. There was no discussion period associated with this presentation.
5/81
Day One Tuesday 19th June 2007

Opening Address: 8.30-9.30
George Winning (GW) Chairman SPE ATW Lisbon, Integrity Team
Manager, Clariant Oil Services.
The opening address introduced the purpose of the workshop, the general
discussion areas to be addressed in each session and the workshop
committee.
A workshop question was introduced with the aim to find a distinction in
peoples understanding.
Can you tell us what you understand by the following terms?
Integrity management
Corrosion management
Presentation - Corrosion and Integrity Management: are we

doing the best we can?
Andrew Duncan (AD) Specialist Inspector, Corrosion and Materials Offshore
Division HSE.
In the current climate corrosion is international news. It is currently very
difficult to be an oil and gas operator.
Oil and gas providers are being pulled from one side by Politicians and on the
other side from Green Peace and other environmental groups.
All oil and gas companies want to do the best they can. They all want to work
with competent suppliers and contractors.
We have come along way since the early explorations in the

offshore industry.
The Forties Alpha Field 1971 initially constructed from carbon steel has
provided many learning opportunities. After 29 years of learning the
Shearwater field in 2000 was constructed mainly of Duplex SS. During this
period the understanding of alloys in the industry has increased considerably
but this however has generated new challenges corrosion of exotic alloys,
stress corrosion cracking and some of the old problems e.g. internal corrosion
is still not yet fully understood.
6/81
The Pipa Alpha disaster in 1988 was the cause of 167 deaths. While this
disaster was not corrosion related, it demonstrates the possible effects of
breakdowns in our integrity management systems.
Statistics from the HSE show that in general in the UK there is an increasing
trend in leak frequency. Although in recent periods of 2005-2006 there has
actually been a decrease recorded.
The ratio of internal to external leaks currently residing at 5:1 is on the
increase and leak frequency statistics collected in accordance with RIDDOR
show that 13% of all leaks are due to corrosion. A breakdown of the
underlying causes reveals that 32% of inspected occurrences were due to
inadequate inspection/condition monitoring, 30% were due to inadequate
design and 23% were due inadequate procedures.
It is expected that the failure frequency over the lifetime of an installation will
follow the profile predicted by the Bathtub model, where a higher failure
frequency is expected at the early part of life followed by a long period of low
failure frequency incorporating the main working lifetime with a further rise in
failure frequency near the end of the life of an installation. Failure frequency
statistics from the North Sea sector for pipeline and installation failures show
no correlation with this prediction.
Another example of integrity management systems failing was in the Bombay
High Disaster 2005. This disaster occurred during the transfer of an injured
person from a support vessel to the Bombay High platform. The weather
conditions were reported as adverse with strong winds and during the
operation the support vessel collided with a riser causing a fire. On
investigation, the integrity management system allows transfers from support
vessels to the platform, but only in normal weather conditions.
Recently in the North Sea there have been no major disasters but there have
been several accidents involving hydrocarbon escapes and fires resulting in
the deaths of eight people. Two men in a recent case were killed by a release
of hydrocarbon as a result of a corrosion related failure of a pipeline and
clamp near the flange of the line.
The use of high performance materials especially alloys has introduced more
complex failure mechanisms such as stress corrosion cracking. Originating
both internally and externally this mechanism is believed to be caused by
hydrogen embrittlement.
How far have we come in corrosion mitigation technology?

Since the early oil and gas exploits technology and awareness has increased
significantly. The de waard & Milliams nomogram provides a good basis for
the prediction of CO2 corrosion and the development of advanced predictive
algorithms. The concept of field monitoring is now being implemented my
7/81
many and the technology required for this is continually improving.

Electrochemical analysis techniques developed and tested in laboratories are
now becoming much more robust and usable in the field. Ultrasonic
monitoring is available and the culture of laboratory testing is changing to
become more field orientated by examining flow loops and developing
technology for field testing.
The concept of corrosion risk assessments in the field is now practiced
heavily in the oil and gas industry. Risk based inspection provides a means to
bring corrosion engineers, inspection engineers and modern mathematical
techniques together to provide written schemes of installation examination
based on theoretical corrosion knowledge and quantitative risk analysis.
The overall corrosion community is performing very well

There is increased understanding in the corrosion mechanisms observed in
the field and why the techniques employed dont always work.
There is a major concern however across the industry relating to the age
profile of employees. A recent observation highlighted that the average age of
personnel on platforms in the North Sea was 54!
The condition of rigs in the North Sea has been heavily affected by the
fluctuating price of oil. An oil price of $10 per barrel (bbl) was the cause of
many problems that have still not yet been overcome. New operating
philosophies were adopted such as Cost Reduction in the New Era (CRINE)
and wholesale redundancies of new and experienced engineers took place in
an attempt to cut costs.
Currently the price of North Sea oil is steady at $60-$70 bbl. The rigs receive
attention but they are still not in a good condition, why?
There has been a reduction in the overall production in the sector. Combined
with a history/culture of cost saving, managers are continually driving cost
saving exercises. There is inadequate planning for the future and recruitment
drives dont provide enough engineers to fill the voids created in the past. It is
difficult to encourage the youth to enter the oil and gas industry. There is need
for more day to day maintenance offshore by painters etc, there are however
not enough beds available in many cases for this to happen.
The industry as a whole is suffering with a large tax burden with few tax
incentives and there is considerable pressure from external bodies. The US
Chemicals Board has issued several concerns directed toward the safety and
integrity management of oil and gas installations. The Baker Report suggests
that companies are not effective at leadership. The Health and Safety
Executive have issued fourteen improvement notices to Floating Production
and Storage Facilitys (FPSO) recently requesting evidence of compliance.
Four of which were issued on the same day!
8/81
Where are we going wrong?

Is the information chain working properly?
Top management make safety statements, these are then filtered to
engineers, and then to the operational workforce. Is the message actually
getting through?
Health and Safety Regulations

A brief introduction to the Health and Safety Regulations was made with
particular reference to regulations 3 to 9 and regulation 19. The requirement
for risk assessment was presented and the need for a competent workforce,
the correct materials, their correct use, effective inspection and the correct
installation of fire/explosion prevention its maintenance.
The Reality
There were several case studies presented showing photographs of corrosion
related safety issues;
I-beams with severe corrosion damage including large holes,
Helicopter deck supports with large holes present,
Firewater pipe work full of holes causing a pipe rupture to occur during a drop
test.
Blocked fire deluge nozzles,
Nuts and bolts almost unidentifiable on the flanges of a main gas line,
Grating collapsing causing an employee to loose his leg,
Grating placed upon grating,
String being used to hold chemical injection skids in place.
Media Criticism
There were several headlines presented demonstrating some of the recent
media criticism directed to the oil and gas industry from the Times, Private
Eye, Upstream, and other media publications. Many of these articles were
directed towards the HSE who offered comments summarising their role in
encouraging good industrial practice and prosecuting companies where
blatant disregard for the law has occurred. The HSE make it clear that they
believe that discussion to encourage compliance is more effective than
prosecution and is their main objective.
What do we need to improve?

There was several improvement areas identified in this presentation and they
include;
9/81
Fabric and maintenance,

Development of Internal corrosion understanding and resistant materials,
Apply the available technology more widely,
Persuade managers that controlling corrosion is the key to controlling costs
etc,
Have no more disasters.
Session 1: 9.30-12.30 Materials Selection & Integrity

Management Considerations in Design.
Session Managers:Derek McNaughton (DM) - Corrosion Engineer, Oceaneering International
Mike Swidzinski (MS) - ConocoPhilips
Session 1 - Introduction (MS)

There are some interesting points to note from Andrew Duncans opening
presentation.
It is evident in the North Sea sector that many structures manufactured from
carbon steel are still in use 40yrs since installation. In some cases carbon
steel structures have outlasted structures manufactured from more recently
developed technically advanced stainless alloys.
Asset Integrity and its management are paramount for the safe operation and
longevity of installations. Integrity management systems should include all
operations from cradle to grave of an installation. Integrity and corrosion
management should be understood and appreciated.
What does this mean for materials selection?
Presentation - Pipeline Corrosion and Integrity Management

Mike Joosten (MJ) Principle Metallurgical Engineer, ConocoPhilips
-
Every pipeline is corroding.

The integrity management of a pipeline is controlling the rate of
corrosion so that the pipeline meets its design life and requirements.
Every material is susceptible to cracking.
Integrity is avoiding the use of materials that are incompatible with their
environmental conditions.
The objective of integrity management is to;

10/81
Identify drivers of corrosion;

-
Corrosion mechanisms,
Temperature, H2S, CO2, bacteria, chemistry of produced fluids,
Wall shear, production solids (sand) causing erosion corrosion,
Feasibility of inhibitors for corrosion control.
Identify constraints;
-
Location, workforce, local pipeline content and quality,

Chemical application, schedule, costs and monitoring by inspection
pigging.
Inhibit corrosion of pipelines;

-
Material selection carbon steel?

Inhibitor application limits, selection and transport,
Flow modelling Topographical, multiphase flow, turbulence.
Develop erosion design philosophies;

-
Sizing topside operations using industrial models e.g. Tulsa model,

Considering erosion characteristics and flow patterns,
Assessing the formation of corrosion pits and their effect.
Make critical decisions;

-
Selection of contractors need experience,

Pipeline diameter flow regime,
Inspectivity access, bends etc,
Fabrication welds and filler considerations,
Hydrotesting to monitor integrity of pipeline,
Dewatering and drying residual salts,
Corrosion monitoring locations easy, accessible ones,
Baseline inspection is this necessary?
Discussion Period Use of Software in Corrosion Management

Q During the design phase can you use the ionic power index to estimate
the corrosion effect of combining salts in fluid?
A (MJ) The ionic strength of a fluid is not really and issue in corrosion but
there is certain ionic strengths are required to support some corrosion
pathways. Software can be used as a design aid.
Q (MJ) The use of software and corrosion prediction software as a design
aid in integrity management, any comments?
A Software provides very conservative answers.
11/81
A Very little knowledge built into corrosion predictive software (Latest

knowledge circa 1974).
Q (MJ) If software was made openly available would it help?
A Yes, if it is free and made into a standard.
A Depends on interpretation of the model data experience is necessary
need workforce to be intelligent and knowledgeable.
A Models used in design and then throughout the life of an asset are flawed
because they do not currently run with real data over the life of the asset.
Need to use models with real online data so that they incorporate the latest
information e.g. oil wetting.
If a model is run initially on a design there will be no corrosion risk due to oil
wetting initially there is no oil wetting. There is still however a risk during
operation and if the oil wetting data is not fed into the model the risk will not
be observed.
Corrosion risk based inspection regimes are useful but where is the risk
coming from are the models being used fed with up to date corrosion related
data?
A Models provide uncertainty due to the data they use.
A It is tough to design a system for a field you initially know little about and it
is even harder to convince a manager to use the exotic materials that may be
necessary later in the life of the installation.
A How good is you capability to react to change? E.g. as the water cut rises.
Do you design for the risks that might develop? It is very difficult to reproduce
results in the laboratory for design aids and redesign is sometimes necessary.
Models should only be used as one design tool of many.
A Can we extend the design life of an installation by exchanging carbon
steels for Corrosion Resistant Alloys (CRAs)? Can a design for 12 years be
extended by 5 years? Once an installation is up and running managers dont
want to take it out of surface.
A Inhibitor availability is a key issue. Life time designs can allow for 2/3 mm
corrosion, if the inhibitor availability is 98%-99%. The inhibitor availability is
being pushed very hard, especially on unmanned lines and production sites. It
is necessary to demonstrate that you are actually achieving the required
availability to back up your corrosion mitigation strategy.
Inhibitor detection is required to monitor its performance and sometimes its
detection is not effective.
12/81
Presentation Continued
A case study was presented to demonstrate the effect inhibitor on corrosion.
A chart depicting the inhibitor availability (ppm) against time (days) with an
overlay of corrosion rate (mm/yr) against time (days) was displayed.
In this case study the inhibitor rate in the period of interest was initially high at
200 ppm and there was only a small corrosion rate recorded approximating to
0.01 mm/yr. The corrosion team was instructed to reduce the level of inhibitor
by half due to the low corrosion rate. The resultant effect observed was a
rapid rise corrosion rate which accelerated to 0.16 mm/yr over 14 days and
continued to accelerate. The cost resulting from this reduction in inhibitor was
greater than if the supply of inhibitor was maintained.
Discussion Period Corrosion Inhibitor Issues

Q (Theirry Chevrot (TC)) For a corrosion rate of 4 mm/yr including pits and a
design for 25 year working life. What inhibitor availability can you estimate?
What would be the corrosion allowance e.g. 4-8mm that you would design into
your pipeline?
A (MJ) We use flow meters on our inhibitor tanks to monitor and measure
the use of inhibitor.
A You need to ensure that your system works
A There is an issue of concern with the systems in place to monitor and
make decisions for new designs.
A (MJ) You have systems in place and need to ensure that your workforce
is trained, knowledgeable, and competent to make correct decisions.
A (MS) Need to design in redundancy i.e. two inhibitor feed pumps and run
one for a month and then the other to allow time to address maintenance
issues. This reduced potential for inhibitor feed problems, although they
occasionally occur. As an integrity/corrosion engineer you need to stand up
and ensure that the well is shut down until the inhibitor is back online or the
consequences could be very costly. Production will be very against this idea
but it is a necessary action.
A Need online data fed back to the office showing chemical usage.
A Many systems are email capable allowing effective data feedback.
Q (MJ) Are we making progress in this area of concern?
13/81
A From an operation point of view it is necessary to make sure production

bosses understand the issues of inhibitor control and will if in the case of feed
loss apply pressure for shut downs.
A (Mette Neilsen (MN)) You can make the operations manager responsible
for integrity, he is then the only person who can make critical decisions.
Relationship management is the key.
A (MS) You need to develop an integrity management procedure with
involvement from operations so that the responsibilities of all are known.
Topics for further discussion include;
Weld corrosion
Weld corrosion is a major concern in oil and gas installations. It is a localised

form of corrosion that appears to occur frequently. There is some correlation
between nickel content in the weld filler and the risk of corrosion. This
however, is unpredictable and weld corrosion often occurs without the
presence of nickel.
It is important to understand the welding procedure and how this may affect
the corrosion potential of welds. Correlations have been observed between
weld temperature and penetration depth. The optimum weld temperature must
be determined for the weld filler in use to ensure minimum risk of weld
corrosion.
The weld filler must be developed carefully as the integrity of the installation
relies upon good welds. Welding applications include;
Flanges
Risers
Skids
Pipelines and repairs
Fittings
It only takes the failure of one weld to cause a major problem.
Discussion Period Weld Corrosion Issues

A (Steve Paterson (SP)) Where you have condensed water in the line
conductivity is often low, the tendency for weld corrosion is low. The use of an
inhibitor in these situations may actually enhance weld corrosion. It is possible
to use fillers such as, carbon manganate rather that nickel to try and minimise
weld corrosion.
14/81
There is a clear need to develop more effective weld filler materials and to test
inhibitors on the weld filler as well as general pipeline and fitting materials.
A (GW) We have observed that some inhibitors can make weld corrosion
worse. You need to design an inhibitor into the whole system to make sure it
works.
A Corrosion inhibition can override the metallurgical effects in weld
corrosion.
Q (Adetutu Fapohunda (AF)) Do you know of any incidents of corrosion in
welds controlled with corrosion inhibitor at 99% availability?
A (TC) Our lab tests have shown this is possible but there has been no
evidence in field tests yet.
A (SP) A field with 95% inhibitor availability was brought on, a short bypass
section (FSM) was included with nickel welds and began to corrode. The line
was injected with inhibitor and the corrosion stopped.
Murphys Law of pipeline corrosion;
Corrosion will occur where there is no monitoring,

Corrosion monitoring prevents corrosion at that location.
Does heat transfer in the system change the corrosion kinetics and
does it mater where the corrosion probes and coupons are
positioned?
Discussion Period Monitoring Methods

Q (MJ) Does anyone have experience of how the location of monitoring
methods changes corrosion?
A In our lab, top of the line coupons experienced different corrosion rates to
coupons positioned elsewhere in the line. This could be due to heat transfer
and it is noticeable that greater difference in corrosion rate occurred in
compound probes made from ceramic mixes.
A (MJ) Electrochemical resistance (ER) probes can become coated in wax.
This can be an indication of heat transfer problems.
Q SFM can be a less intrusive way of monitoring but are the results
representative of the system?
15/81
A (TC) In perspective, corrosion monitoring is there to tell us what changes

occur during the life of a field.
We use monitoring to determine if inhibitors work. If they are coated in wax or
positioned incorrectly then there may be problems with your pipeline.
A (MJ) Monitoring is only one piece of information.
A It can only be used as an indicator. It can tell you if corrosion is taking
place but the rate of corrosion information is only relative to the corrosion rate
history collected of the pipe.
A Laboratory work involving ER probes can allow the rate of corrosion to be
calculated. This however needs to be reliable to be trusted for application in
the field.
Intelligent pigs are used to inspect the condition of pipelines in both onshore
and offshore applications. They can be very costly.
There was some pigging data presented by MJ showing some of the
inconsistencies that are regularly experienced in pipelines. There were distinct
areas in the data that showed correlation between the inspection methods
employed from MFL, internal UT and external UT, but there also many areas
where no correlation was present. This suggests that that the inspection
methods should be used as a guide only.
MFL is a technique often used for prove-ups and has a tendency to
underestimate corrosion compared to UT techniques. The interpretation of the
data collected is difficult and the results hold significant uncertainty.
A chart was presented showing the actual wall loss (mm) against the wall loss
measured by intelligent pigs (mm). The level of uncertainty was evident from
this data and it can be concluded that the wall loss measured by pigs 20%
accurate for 95% of the time.
The concept of pigs causing pipeline damage and corrosion was introduced.
Disk pigs remove water but have a tendency to smear wax over the
surface of the pipeline.
Brush pigs remove wax and corrosion products from the surface of
the pipeline but have the tendency to reopen/reactivate pitting sites.
Discussion Period Corrosion Damage Measurement

Q How do you measure corrosion damage?
16/81
A (MJ) We use UT as our base line measurement and compare over lifetime
of the installation.
Q Why do you believe UT is the most accurate and consistent
measurement?
A (MJ) It is the technique we have the most control over.
Q Do you use external UT at all?
A (MJ) We understand the limitations in this technique but external UT show
consistency through our orientation and corrosion defects.
We have seen cases where type 1T pits where internal UT shows no pits due
to the orientation of the pit in relation to the pig, but external UT has showed
the defect with great accuracy. Internal MFL is also a good pit detection
technique where small deep pits are suspected.
A Internal UT requires a very clean pipeline to be effective.
Q With respect to internal UT data, did you run a baseline prior to collecting
data?
A (MJ) The pipe age needs to be taken into account. This line is 30-40yrs
old. The technology wasnt available to run a baseline measurement.
A (SP) A baseline survey can considerably increase the accuracy of MFL.
A (MJ) The MFL technique doesnt measure wall thickness though so is it
necessary to run a baseline. There is no calibration facility with MFL.
UT measures the wall thickness so the data collected is relative and historic.
A (TC) It is always necessary when performing inspections with tools to be
consistent with the analysis. You can only compare data collected in the same
way at the same locations.
A (MS) It is difficult to run a baseline. It largely depends on the pigging
technology available and the pipeline characteristics. A baseline provides
necessary data to avoid the incorrect conclusions about corrosion being
made.
A It is possible for some pigging contractors to sometimes give incorrect
information with respect to capabilities of their pigs.
One particular company was consulted on a pipeline design during the
conceptual stage and said that the line could be pigged. The design was then
implemented and the company then claimed that they had not yet built a pig
of suitable size!
17/81
Presentation Meeting the Design Intent

Steve Paterson (SP) Head Materials & Corrosion Engineer, Shell UK
It is necessary to adopt a life-cycle approach and avoid project

savings that increase the operating expenditure.
Consider the effects that process conditions have on selected
materials. You should use failure mode analysis to quantify the
effects.
It is necessary to write a full description of materials selected
including justification of their selection to allow the purpose and the
limits of the design to be known.
It is necessary to pay attention to the management of change in the
project and progression from the concept to the execution stages.
It is necessary to avoid too much deviation and substitutions from
the design specification.
A procurement strategy must reflect the project risks.
o Identify key areas and focus surveillance activities.
o Be aware of slippage creating materials issues.
Be aware of intentional slippage from contractor companies that
force you to select materials that you are not comfortable with to
reach the deadline.
Discussion Period Meeting the Design Intent

A (MS) I have had experience with all the above comments.
A In big organisations, it is possible to loose the key design concept behind
specific materials selection.
A (SP) It is frustrating when contractors allow projects to slip when you have
placed all the possible safeguards on your side of the project and ordered
items well in advance.
Q (MJ) Is the integrity manager of Shell responsible for projects?
A (SP) It is the responsibility of the project manager to ensure that the
project meets the integrity intent.
Q (MJ) A dedicated integrity manager will have more control/power to make
decisions.
A The concept of an integrity manager is to provide integrity management
integration to projects.
18/81
An integrity management document can give assurance but if you want 100%
implementation then a new integrity management system must be adopted.
A In the last two years we have established an integrity assurance engineer
position. We now have much more control over the capture of problems and
how they are addressed.
A (Ron Hewson (RH)) Some clients have systems in place where the
project manager of an installation becomes the operations manager for that
installation for the first 3yrs of operation.
A (MS) We have experienced that process it is very effective.
A (RH) The Contractors involved work in an alliance mode and have
influence throughout the project.
A (SP) That was a good concept in the past but is now out of fashion. It is
difficult to maintain alliance and can be very costly.
Maintaining the external fabric of an installation also a big challenge, it
provides a bit threat to integrity;
Must ensure that the requirement for insulation is addressed early

in the design stage and the design is tailored to the needs of the
insulation.
Must enforce good quality of finish on all components and use
appropriate methods of insulation and coatings.
Must develop inspections techniques and strategies as part of the
design stage.
Discussion Period Coatings and Insulation Issues

Q (MS) does anybody have any comments or experiences with insulation
issues?
A (Graham Gibb (GG)) I have seen CUI and TSA coatings completely
corroded through. The reason for this is unknown so it is worth checking all
your systems.
A (SP) TSA needs to be applied properly.
A (GG) The operators comment was What do you expect; you wouldnt
expect it to be immune forever!
Is TSA really suitable for these applications?
19/81
A (MS) TSA can be applied differently and its performance depends upon
the standard of its application. Applied to a good standard and it will last 2530yrs.
A (TC) The lifetime of TSA is dependent upon its location and who applied
it.
There is a number of failure mechanisms in steels used today and one of
major concern is stress corrosion cracking particularly at weld sites. There is
now a version of 13%Cr alloy that is suitable for welding and provides very
good resistance to cracking.
The mechanism for Hydrogen Induced Stress Cracking (HISC) is largely
understood and mitigation can be achieved by the use of cladding spools.
Failures of lean grade steels due to cracking and not well understood but it is
possible to use a rich grade applied with PWHT.
Duplex stainless steels, 22%Cr and 25%Cr can be applied to short pipe
sections but is expensive. Failures of Duplex have questioned its use in
subsea applications.
It is possible to use Corrosion Resistant Alloy (CRA) to clad stainless steel.
Failures of Asgard and Thunderhorse were attributable to stressed CRA
components.
It is necessary to ensure that welding is carried out to specific standards
EEMUA194 and that a high quality coating is applied to reduce the risk of
failure.
It is also necessary to be very clear about the design choice for weld material
and any coatings applied.
Discussion Period Use of Corrosion Resistant Alloys

Q (Gordon Rowan (GR)) What about down-hole materials selection for wells
and well tubulars?
A (SP) you need to design to the specific application.
There is an ASI for the use Alloy 718. Failures of this material have shown
that a very good surface quality is required.
20/81
A (MJ) Metallurgists and materials scientists have developed many alloys

that are used down for down-hole applications to the top-side processes.
Some of which have been developed for their weldability.
Q Does anyone have any experience with cladded carbon welds and the
issues with monitoring their condition?
A (SP) If it a chemically bonded and not mechanical then inspection of
bonds is possible. It is difficult to inspect the quality of mechanical attachment.
Q Are there any precautions that we should know about in using 65 carbon
steel?
A There have been some concerns with its use on ocean liners.
It is important to ensure that the design is completed with the use of
appropriate standards and that the standards are presented with the design to
reflect their importance.
There are several relevant materials selection standards
EEMUA 194.
NORSOK M-001.
ISO 15156.
ISO 13628-1 Subsea ready.
New ISO NP19910 (proposed).
Company specific standards.
Discussion Period Design Standards

Q Is a company specific standard specific to one location or is it applicable
to all application round the world?
A (SP) It is applicable to the region that you are working in.
A BP uses a global standard system and they are beginning to adopt site
specific standards for each location.
There are concerns with the looseness of their application. They appear to be
very conservative.
It is a big challenge to make global standards usable.
21/81
Presentation Materials Selection and Integrity Management

in the Design Stage
Thierry Chevrot (TC) Corrosion Specialist, Total
As corrosion engineers we are not doing our jobs correctly!
If we were then the production managers etc would work with us!
Corrosion monitoring - Why do we get it wrong?
We need to address the need to monitor correctly and use the data collected
effectively.
There is a false sense of security provided when lots of monitoring is
conducted. Many monitoring schemes are not very effective and dont provide
the correct picture of integrity management performance.
What can we do?
Our corrosion monitoring philosophys need lots of development. They should

be addressed before/during the design stage and throughout the project.
We need to ensure that the correct monitoring locations are selected and that
we do not to deviate from the design.
The pipeline engineer should be given ownership during the engineering
phase and should work full time on the project, briefed on the monitoring
requirements and by sufficiently trained. The equipment requirements have to
be made clear in order to achieve our goals.
Discussion Period Inspection Issues

Q Are corrosion engineers becoming more involved in the design stage?
A (TC) This is the case in our company. The pipeline inspectors are
becoming involved with pipeline layouts and probe positioning etc. This
however, is only for large projects and they tend not to get involved in smaller
projects.
Progression in this area is only possible if we as corrosion engineers explain
and justify the importance of these considerations.
A (Cliff Johnson (CJ)) It is necessary to explain to managers what you do as
corrosion engineers. You need to convince managers that corrosion
management is part of asset management and you should justify it financially.
22/81
Q (SP) Why design corrosion coupons which need to be taken out of the
line for inspection. Do these reduce the integrity of the pipeline?
A (MJ) Corrosion coupons provide a baseline measurement.
Q (TC) Do coupons disrupt the flow?
A (MS) you can get flush mounted coupons that dont disrupt the flow.
A (TC) They need to be correctly placed to provide a representative picture
in the pipeline.
A (MS) We need to design a more effective system to monitor corrosion in
our processes.
There are problems associated with field developments of subsea systems
that become very technical. We often dont have the technology to cope with
the complexity of these systems and need to adopt a transversal approach
that allows us to understand;
The mixes of metallurgies,

Corrosion mechanisms/cathodic protection,
Thermal insulation,
Erosion due to sand and other solids,
Sealed protection boxes.
Failures offshore are often very costly. We have adopted a tendency to learn
from our failures rather than to ensure our designs will work. Many failures are
caused by the failure of small components such as bolts. There seems to be a
lack of adequate easy solutions.
Discussion Period
A We need to find time and a systematic way of looking at the project
design to ensure it is correct.
A It is very important to consider fully the design of spools and coupons that
are easy to use but will provide the relevant data.
It is easy to fall in to the traps of materials selection for effective design. A
typical example is the selection of steel which is hot galvanised vs. steel that
is zinc coated. The corrosion performance will differ significantly between
these two materials. If you select hot galvanised steel then make sure the
steel you receive is hot galvanised!
23/81
Session 2: 13.30-15.30 Causes of Corrosion.

Session Managers:Egil Gulbrandsen (EG) - Institute for Energy Technology, Materials and
Corrosion Technology.
George Winning (GW) - Integrity Team Manager, Clariant Oil Services.
Presentation Causes of Corrosion

Srdjan Nesic (SN) Professor, Ohio University.
Mechanism of sweet corrosion.
The overall reaction:

Fe + CO2 + H2O FeCO3 + H2
Anodic reaction:
Fe Fe2+ + 2eCathodic reaction:
CO2 + H2O H2CO3
H2CO3 H+ + HCO3
H+ + e- H2
Following de Waard & Milliams mechanism
H2CO3 + e- H2 + HCOIn sweet corrosion the pH can be altered by changing the concentration of H+.
The carbonic reaction however is independent upon pH so is more difficult to
control.
If the concentrations of carbonic acid and dissolved iron are correct then
FeCO3 will precipitate on the solid iron surface and for a protective film at the
steel surface. Iron carbonate films can protect against CO2 corrosion.
Mechanism of organic acid corrosion
Organic acids such as acetic acid are very corrosive.

24/81
Ac = Acetate
Fe + 2HAc Fe(Ac)2 + H2
Anodic reaction:
Fe Fe2+ + 2eCathodic reaction:
HAc H+ + AcH+ + e- H2
HAc + e- H2 + AcThe binding between H+ and Acetate is the corrosion causing step in organic
acid corrosion. The corrosion potential is also more powerful than the pH
suggests which shows similarities with CO2 corrosion.
Control of the pH in this mechanism will proved some control over the
corrosion caused by organic acids. Corrosion due to organic acids is also very
flow dependent.
Discussion period CO2 and Organic Acid Corrosion Mechanisms

Q Does the film caused in the acetic acid reaction interact with films of iron
carbonate protecting the steel surface?
A (SN) Organic acids are very corrosive, they tend to dig under iron
carbonate films causing them to peel off.
Q Are organic acids and CO2 behind pitting?
A They have been related to severe local attack. It is possible for 100ppm of
acetic acid to produce a corrosion rate of 50mm/yr. it is necessary to ensure
the measurement of acetic acid is accurate for your system.
Q (SN) How many here today are measuring acetic acid concentration?
How many are monitoring in such a way that acetic acid measurement is
accurate?
Q (GW) Analysis is a fundamental issue. Is there a standard procedure in
your companies?
A (TC) The first step is to check whether your water analysis is correct and
representative of your systems and consistent with the pH.
A (SN) As far as I know there is no standard of water analysis technique.
25/81
A (Peter Allison (PA) API 45 does cover water analysis. Organic acids are
also food sources for bacteria so DTI have issued a sampling procedure for
the North Sea sector.
A (SN) Organic acids like interfaces and are often able to interact with
oil/water/inhibitor interfaces in a multifaceted reaction.
A (Sadie McNeil (SM)) Corrosion inhibitor interaction with organic acids can
enhance the corrosion inhibitor.
A (SP) The corrosion inhibitor that we use was preventing acetic acid
corrosion in the field.
A (MJ) Localised corrosion occurs in the presence of acetic acid in our field
and we use it as a criterion for inhibitor selection and performance. Bacteria in
our water samples can rapidly consume any acetic acid present.
Organic acids can change the pH, surface properties, water/oil mix properties
and the inhibitor action.
It is necessary to control the organic acid concentration and the butyric acid
concentrations. If a molar concentration is maintained then a good estimation
of the corrosion rate can be made.
A (EG) Organic acids corrode more strongly in low temperature systems.
Presentation continued
Sour corrosion (H2S) mechanism
When H2S is not full dissociated the mechanism is not too dissimilar to the
mechanisms or CO2 and organic acid corrosion.
Fe + H2S FeS + H2
Anodic reaction:
Fe Fe2+ + 2eCathodic reaction
H2S H+ + HSH+ +e- H2

H2S + e- H2 + HS-
The reaction scheme for H2S corrosion is nut fully understood and this
mechanism only proposes a possible pathway.
26/81
Sulphur is very reactive and forms iron sulphide very rapidly at the surface of
the steel.
The Fe2+ ion in the steel are able to diffuse easily through the iron sulphide to
form layers of sulphide at the surface of the steel. H2S is able to diffuse
through the formed layers to the iron/iron sulphide interface and cause
ruptures and cracking to occur in the film formations. This allows further
penetration of H2S and significant corrosion occurs.
Iron sulphide films have been attributable to some degree of corrosion
protection but due to their often fragile and porous structure they can often
break away from the surface leaving corrosion sites exposed. It is possible for
film thicknesses to range from 10-100m thick.
The film formation is the main difference between the H2S mechanism and
two mechanisms previously discussed. The controlling factors are
temperature and H2S concentration.
Discussion Period H2S Corrosion Mechanism

A CO2 corrosion initially dominates over H2S until the concentration of H2S
becomes large from 10-1000ppm. At small concentrations of H2S there CO2
corrosion mechanism is suppressed.
Q Is the surface exposed to the oxygen where sulphide corrosion is
greatest?
A Where sufficient levels of oxygen are available ignition of the sulphide film
is possible.
A (SP) the conventional thought is that the sulphide films are very adherent,
this is however not always the case.
A (SN) Most of the protective film cases occur in low concentrations of H2S.
When the concentration is increased, elemental sulphur can be released
forming detrimental films. The reason behind this is not known.
Q Have you done any studies to quantify H2S protection capabilities?
A (SN) Burt Potts was of characterising CO2/H2S ratio is the best way of
quantification. You should aim for a 1:1 ratio to achieve the lowest corrosion
rate. There is however, not much understanding behind this.
Q How strong is the bond between a sulphide film and the metal surface
and what are the characteristics of any interactions?
A Some sulphide films have semi-conductor properties and form bonds
between the film and the metal that can be very tight. The strength is however
difficult to quantify.
27/81
Presentation Causes of Corrosion in Corrosion Resistant

Alloys
David Hillis (DJH) Technical Authority Materials/Construction, Total E&P
Why use Corrosion Resistant Alloys (CRAs)?
The often provide a good balance between operational and capital

expenditure.
Some conditions dictate their use.
Used in applications where intervention/inspection and replacement
are dangerous/complex and expensive.
What are CRAs
Any metals that do not interact with their environments.

Metals that retain their passivity.
There is large range of metals e.g. 3/5/9CR etc
Typical applications for CRAs
Down-hole installations, tubing and DHSV etc.
Causes of corrosion in CRAs
Production environment is often very aggressive;

o High temperatures/pressures, aggressive water chemistry.
Water injection;
o Use of sea/produced water with aggressive components e.g.
chlorides.
o Residual oxygen presence.
Other environmental effects;
o Well stimulation bacterial and aggressive components
o Kill and workover fluids
o Packer fluids
Discussion Period CRAs

Q (SP) We are not convinced about the quality of 174PH and its suitability
for its duty. Does anyone have any comments or experience of this?
A (DJH) We have experienced problems when this has been applied to
similar duties and we now do not use this material in safety critical
components.
28/81
Q (GW) When do metallurgists get involved in the design of your

processes?
A (DJH) Communication with metallurgists is fairly early in the design
processes. Top-side and subsea modifications are also verified by
metallurgists.
Q (GW) Are design of cladding and coatings considered by your
metallurgists?
A They are considered to be general design issues.
In the case of CRAs what is the definition of material failure?
CRAs are designed to operate in a specific environmental window. We need
to ask if we are managing the change effectively and whether we are tying to
operate outside the envelope for these materials.
Q Are there any identifiers for the causes of CRA failures?
A There are but the message sometimes doesnt get through to the relevant
people soon enough. It appears that contractors are not very good at passing
on the correct messages quickly.
Q (Reg Simpson (RS)) Can the proliferation of contractors investing in
overlay equipment cause a problem?
A CRAs generally withstand corrosion but the melt zone in between the
cladding and the CRA can cause phases that are brittle and susceptible to
hydrogen embrittlement. It is important to never design the interface to carry
load, failure is common in these situations.
A Hot welding can drive the hydrogen out but some deep assets open up
allowing hydrogen embrittlement.
A Shell published the information they learnt following the Shearwater
failures and collaborated with Total and BP to understand the failure
mechanisms.
Material testing is the first essential step and from this we no longer use
SS316 in instrument tubing.
Q (SP) Why do we still use SS316?
A (TC) We have banned 316 from our designs but contractors could not
supply sufficient fittings in 904. Tubing is now made from 904 and fittings are
allowed in 316. However, some of the 904 supplied to us has been of poor
quality.
29/81
Presentation Corrosion under Insulation (CUI)

Don Harrop (DH) BP Exploration Operating Co.
Water ponds under insulation can form where pipeline designs have not been
thoroughly thought out. These traps can be the cause of significant corrosion.
Local concentrations of aggressive components such as chlorides can
become very high.
Inspection of CUI becomes a problem as it is difficult to determine a starting
point. Techniques such as infrared scanning can be employed to locate water
build up but this does not always work in complex systems.
It is possible to use the CUI risk pyramid which provides a structure for
effective inspection. It is however generally necessary to develop a tight
inspection regime to determine the condition of the insulation and the
pipework beneath it.
The management of systems and insulation needs be effective for a long
lasting installation especially if there is a possibility for extended usage. The
inspection of insulation can be very time consuming and costly.
There an industrial forum setup for the discussion on CUI by John Thirkettle.
There are some serious issues arising from CUI especially on passive fire
protection installations.
Discussion Period - CUI

Q What is peoples experience of detecting CUI?
A (SP) We are experience continual problems on Shearwater. CUI on the
contactor column was detected and we now use a strategic system for CUI
detection. A risk matrix was developed where those items flagged as medium
or high risk are manually checked.
A - Stripping and replacing insulation however can be the cause of corrosion.
You should be careful not to replace original insulation with inferior products.
Q (AD) Are we managing CUI properly? My experience allows me to say
that there is little evidence of maintenance and that often insulation is
replaced and not sealed. The operations system doesnt always cover
insulations fitting.
A (TC) The only was to ensure against corrosion is to remove and replace
insulation. After 10yrs this should be done whatever the state of the insulation
and pipework.
30/81
A (MJ) In the arctic area, polyurethane insulation is fitted manually and

inspected continuously. 10000-15000 insulations are checked every year.
Q (MJ) Has anyone had experience of polyurethane insulation failing?
A - No experiences offered!
A (DH) It is about getting the resources necessary to manage the problem,
this is a major task.
Q (DH) Do we really need insulation? Can personnel protection be sought in
other ways?
A (MJ) Expanded metal can be used for insulation but can be seen as a
safety issue.
A (SP) Insulation reduces noise driven by HSE and not necessarily for
thermal insulation.
Presentation Prediction Success

Srdjan Nesic (SN) Professor, Ohio University.
The prediction model developed by de Waard & Milliams has been used with
some success but is limited by the knowledge level and data built into the
model.
The accuracy of models is dependent on the accuracy of the data used in
their development and the level of knowledge built into them.
Operators using models should be fully trained in their use and in the
interpretation of the data collected. The limitations of any model should also
be made very clear to all those using it.
Discussion Period Corrosion Prediction

Q Does the de waard & Milliams model take into account the build-up of iron
carbonate films?
A (SN) The key issue is the pH, if the pH is in a certain range then there will
be no build-up of film. The pH must be controlled.
Q (Will Durnie (WD)) Can you explain the term mechanistic model?
A (SN) The parameters in mechanistic models for corrosion prediction have
meaning such as Do for the diffusion coefficient. Empirical models are
developed from data and the parameters are coefficients e.g. a, b, c which
have no direct meaning to the corrosion rate.
31/81
Q (Neil Bretherton (NB)) When testing inhibitors, film domination occurs at

50 -60C. In pre-scaled surfaces are models important for inhibitor selection?
A (SN) Sometimes interference of scale/inhibitor occurs where scale and
inhibitor both compete for space on the metal surface. We can not predict the
strength of interaction from general knowledge.
A (EG) This is a very poorly understood area.
Q (DH) Cassandra is a BP model for corrosion prediction. We are
commonly asked how to set up arrays in the Cassandra model in excel. How
much information are people using to run these models?
A (SN) We need to capture all of what we know within models.
32/81
Session 3: 16.00-18.00
Mitigation Strategies.
Design
of
Corrosion
Session Managers:Peter Allison (PA) OFC Technical Services Ltd.

Karen Christie (KC) Commercial Microbiology Ltd.
Presentation Design of Corrosion Mitigation Strategies

Peter Allison (PA) OFC Technical Services Ltd.
Alternative strategies
o Balance capital costs vs. operational costs
o Use of corrosion resistant materials vs. corrosion inhibitor.
o Can you mitigate corrosion by changing the operating
procedures?
o Use Life cycle analysis of system for optimisation.
o Adopt different strategies for different times in project life.
Internal corrosion strategies.

o Need to consider the consequences and likelihood of failure.
Other flow assurance influences.

o Production chemistry
Scale/hydrate/wax control.
o Usually one issue is more of a control challenge than othersthis is a driver for strategy choice.
Discussion Period
Q (GW) Do limitation of availability of carbon steels force selection of CRA?
A (PA) Depends on the operations/operators solutions available.
A (TC) Sometimes pushed into solutions that are not optimal but necessary.
A (MJ) We have to sometimes take the options that are available due to
cost constraints.
Q (PA) Why take the option of inhibiting corrosion rather than using CRAs?
A (TC) If you have a large field with 200+ wells then material selection is
important. It could be more cost effective to use an inhibitor. It is easier to
invest in CRAs for smaller projects.
33/81
Presentation Strategy Identification and Implementation

Dan Kirkwood (DK) Oceaneering International.
According to the Hoar Report 1971 the cost of corrosion in the UK was
3%GDP. 30yrs later the cost of corrosion according to the DTI 2000 is
3%GDP.
The Hoar Report identifies the need to;
o Increase education in corrosion and corrosion protection.
o Increase awareness of the hazards of corrosion protection.
It was identified that corrosion mitigation it must be practical!
The importance of painters on installations was highlighted and examples
made with the Golden Gate Bridge. The challenge on installations today is
access!
There are several top corrosion issues 2007
Source CMWG March 2007.
Boeing Vertol Chinook incident 6 Nov. 1986.

o Route cause Corrosion of gearbox.
o A galvanic cell formed in a crevice within the gearbox mechanics
and the component failed due to fatigue cracking.
Synchronisation was lost and the helicopter blades collided.
2nd Tay Rail Bridge 120th birthday opened in June 1887.

o Question Are the materials that we think we are working with
actually the materials we think they are?
o Water trapped in the construction bars measured at pH 3.5.
There is a 30% lost in thickness at the 6oclock position in the
cross beams over 100 years time period.
o Need to make sure the design for corrosion mitigation is
practical and realistic Drilling drain holes in the cross bars will
significantly compromise integrity of the structure!
Offshore installation with corrosion rate of 12.5mpy

Internal corrosion the rogue pit!
o Analysis showed insignificant metal loss (Net) one pit caused
the failure!
o Micro-colonising containing sulphate and nitrate reducers. This
particular bug causes harm to humans.
34/81
We need universities, industries and research institutes to research industrial

topics.
How do we ensure that we understand foreseeable future corrosion issues?
Pro-activity in identification:
Need to face consistency issues

How confident are we of these outcomes?
Issues for the conference to consider:
What can be done to better capture corrosion considerations in

predicted work?
What can be done to influence improvements?
Presentation Design of corrosion Mitigation Strategies

Ron Hewson (RH) Asset Integrity Consultant, ABB Engineering Services.
Industry challenges and trends

o Issues with age profiles
o Repeating mistakes
o Too much reliance on the black box!
Life cycle is very important

o Key principles
Materials selection, construction, operations.
Maintenance, inspection and communications.
All should incorporate failure investigation.
Discussion Period Corrosion Mitigation Strategies

Q What is the subject matter of today?
A Corrosion mitigation.
Need to understand life cycle as a whole company or team.
Q (RH) How do you get to the information back into the system?
35/81
A (SN) There are procedures in place.

A (GW) There seems to be a missing link in the chain!
Q (RH) I think communication is a problem between companies and
contractors.
Training is very important.
A Quality of information is important, needs to be clear and accurate.
Q (RH) How do you ensure correct accurate information is fed back?
A We need to work with operators.
A (TC) Route causes often found but reporting can be hard when people are
busy. Systems in place are very complex.
A (RH) We need to take the time to communicate correctly.
A (MS) NTI is an online question and answer database for addressing
issues in industry. The SPE also have an online forum for industrial issues.
Examples of corrosion problems on installations:
E.g. cable trays that have been replaced but instead of being welded on to the
tray hangers they were welded onto the integral structure of the pipeline and
galvanic corrosion caused leakage. This was identified as a management
change issue.
Need to be aware of fatigue factors and ensure that people understand that
the message of fatigue needs to be addressed early so the message needs to
be sent early and not when the failure has occurred.
Interpretation of data should be done by educated personnel or operators who
are trained. This can increase the life of components by 4xs.
Integrity management
o Competent people
o Reliable assets
o Effective systems
o Preventative maintenance
o Driving with care(operators)
o Inspection (routine)
o Flowing legislative guidelines
o Corrective maintenance.
36/81
Discussion topics integrity management tools
Discussion Period Integrity Management

Q What is the difference between vulnerability and critically?
A Vulnerability relates to the probability of a failure happening.
Critically relates to the measure of importance of an item to the process.
A Fundamentally it doesnt matter as long as definitions are clear in the
process.
RBI Identifying, analysing, inspecting, collection of data, and reviewing the
data collected.
Environmental change review as necessary.
Safety critical is not a clear definition needs to be clearly defined.
A Safety critical includes items that can cause harm to personnel or people.
Lets not confuse people about definitions.
Safe and economic asset life depends on attention to asset care throughout
its lifetime.
Design correctly
Operate within design parameters
Inspect regularly
Maintain.
Need to use experience, best practice, education and training.
Q The integrity management concept is still fresh for industry, to strengthen
this concept we need to put rules in place and make individuals accountable
in the workplace.
An asset manager should be responsible for the integrity of his assets. He
should be able to cascade information easily to lower tiers in the system.
Q (RH) Who ends up in court? Who does asset manager answer to?
A The whole group is responsible.
Q (RH) All should be involved in integrity management including the CEO?
Need to have asset manager clear on responsibilities.
37/81
A (AD) You need to sell corrosion management to senior management!

Q When putting strategies together, do people offshore understand why
strategies are written i.e. continual chemical injection?
A (GW) Need to take strategy ideas to the people who operate them.
Q Isnt that our jobs? Why do we develop strategies and then not
communicate them to the people doing the job!
A Communication is the key.
Q Why do we feel that we know what happens in the field? We need to use
the procedures that are actually used in the field and write strategies that work
around that.
A We dont have answers to all the issues.
A Smaller independents have CE that spends time offshore to increase
awareness.
Q How do you stop operators walking around on insulation?
A You need to be offshore working with operators they dont want their
installations to fail either.
A (Cliff Johnson) We need to talk in the operators terms Why operations
work the way they do? We need to use their knowledge to address the
challenge.
The NACE website will have information addressing issues in the next 6-12
months.
A (SN) Need to educate new corrosion engineers. Educating
operators/technicians in not the key, there needs to be future plans to ensure
people are effectively trained.
A Integrity requires the identification of clear roles. Operators own integrity
program and operations should take personal safety on board. They need to
understand the issues for a step change to occur.
A Operators need issues to be explained and it must benefit them for it to
work.
A (SM) Samples from potable water are taken every two days. Corrosion
samples are taken every 2 weeks!
Q Does everyone agree that corrosion awareness must be increased?
38/81
A It is done to a limited extent UMIST currently offers the only

postgraduate course for corrosion engineers. Hence the UMIST Mafia!
There are difficulties in recruiting experienced people. They tend to demand
higher salaries.
Q (RH) We need to address these problems. What are we doing about
them?
A (AD) We ask about recruitment when we go on site and the answer is
surprising. Apprentice schemes were excellent but they havent occurred in
about 20 yrs.
Maritime graduates are being used to great effect in the North Sea.
A In Abu Dhabi, graduates are selected on their performance and the best
are recruited and then trained up in corrosion engineering.
A (SP) In 24 recent recruits we have 5 graduates. Experienced engineers
have been coached in knowledge transfer to young engineers. Education is
not just about training, learning is the key. You retain more knowledge by
doing so we implement discussions.
We like to employ young enthusiastic motivated people. We have in house
training facilities to increase corrosion knowledge.
A (TC) Training can be done in house very effectively. This is a world wide
policy of ours.
Recruitment of engineers from our contractor companies is now banned in our
company. We now tend to recruit 25yr olds and train them in corrosion.
A (SN) I think some basic knowledge of corrosion is required in order to
perform well. Good awareness and sensitivity to the subject will allow young
engineers to perform well in time.
Q (GW) how do you teach a subject if people dont want to learn it?
A (GW) Close of session comments:Communication is the key factor in a successful future.
39/81
Day Two Wednesday 21st June 2007

Session 4: 08.30-12.30 Implementation of Corrosion
Mitigation Strategies.
Session Managers:Alyn Jenkins (AJ) Corrosion Team Leader, M-I SWAC.O
Stephen Maxwell (SM) Commercial Microbiology Ltd.
Derek McNaughton (DM) Corrosion Engineer, Oceaneering International.
Presentation Corrosion Mitigation Chemical Selection and

Treatment
Mohsen Achour (MA) Staff Engineer, ConocoPhillips.
Corrosion inhibitor selection, how do we do it?
Challenges:
How do we select the correct inhibitor?

How much of it should we use?
How should it be applied, batch or continuous?
How do we know its working?
If there is uncertainty in any of these 4 steps then failure will occur!
Need to understand the system to be treated. This is not trivial. We do

not always fully know the system. We often only have a best guess.
This is easier on existing fields where data can be used.
Need to work with more than one vendor- time consuming.
Provide field fluids for testing easy to say.
Perform inhibitor testing in house or assign a lab to perform it for you.
Choose appropriate tests to choose correct inhibitor.
Discussion Period How Do We Select the Correct Inhibitor?

A We find that our understanding of the system is ok but we are often forced
to compromise therefore the performance is reduced. The product
performance is often a minor part of the product development.
A It is easy to get a chemical that works but difficult to get one that is
compatible with the other constraints.
40/81
Q (GW) The complexity of testing has increased recently to under deposit

testing, weld testing, etc. Does anybody have any concepts for testing in the
future?
A (MJ) We seem to put more constraints on chemicals. In Sub-sea facilities,
we now require hydrate testing. We can start with a much smaller pool of
chemicals. How to select current inhibitor? Start with water soluble vs. oil
soluble. What is implied be this terminology? We are interested in the actives
only, solubility going to affect performance greatly?
A (GW) Solubility is vague. Still large amount of inhibitor in the interface, this
is not good terminology.
Q The majority of testing looks for general corrosion. What tests are there
for localised corrosion?
A Short term testing is required for general corrosion whilst long term testing
is required for pitting corrosion.
Q Do you partition test for inhibitors?
A Partitioning is key for inhibitor performance.
Q 1) Is there a feel for the test time for products?
2) Where are we in terms of the best product development wise?
A Is there change in the future? The conditions of the reservoirs are
becoming worse (sour). We dont have any choice but to change the
chemistry.
A We are limited to the DTI environmental goal posts. There is a blanket
wide warning on surfactant use!
Q Do green products mean lower performance?
A I dont think so we need to change but the industry wont accept lower
performance.
A There are 2 markets. The US is an easier market for chemical
development. UK market is more difficult is it is costly to register new
chemistries. There are more environmental rules in the North Sea.
Q What R&D is required to development of chemistry in the future?
What is the need for new chemicals and how are they best tested?
A We need to know the rules and CFAST regulations for product
development need guidance for the development of realistic systems. It is
difficult to react with out them.
41/81
Q Lab tests are good how can you develop for the field though?
Q New chemistries are expensive. How do you sell a better performing
more expensive product? Operators need to know that there is a cost
involved.
Q Can we come to an agreement on the test procedure, i.e. pre-corroded,
test equipment etc?
How much inhibitor should we use?
Adopt a conservative approach money, availability.

Take vendors advice depends on what you are doing. Need to find
optimum concentration.
Optimise injection rate take into account solids present, partitioning,
scale etc.
Rely on corrosion monitoring/lab testing How confident are you with
the results?
Vary injection rate operation conditions can change.
Adjust based on residual analysis how do you correlate information
from vendor and process?
Discussion Period - How much inhibitor should we use?

Q Our corrosion problem occurs near the injection points. Is this due to the
limit of the injector and concentration of the inhibitor?
A Most inhibitors are very corrosive if injected at 100% concentration.
Corrosion at injection points is a symptom if this.
Q Sometimes pumps fail during our normal injection strategies. We
generally have to introduce more chemical. Does anybody know why this
occurs?
A You need to inject through a quill into the turbulent areas of the line.
Inhibitor can fall out of gas streams in laminar flow.
Q How much should be injected? How does the corrosion rate correlate with
the amount of inhibitor injected? Is it necessary to conduct field studies? As a
vendor, we should follow up our applications in the field more often to gain
some correlation between lab and field data.
A (DH) There are often correlation problems between lab and field data. It is
not always possible to conduct field tests and optimisation in the field is
42/81
generally only done if you are lucky with budgets and time. Residual Analysis
(RA) is a very dangerous technique as it is a low confidence technique.
A You cant trust the numbers from RA but it can be used for qualitative
analysis.
A (DH) You have to put more effort into monitoring and developing the
requirements so that the correct application rate is used.
Q (MJ) RA is important. We need an understanding of where the actives
end up and RA provides an indication tool. There are issues related to RA
when solids are present but loop testing can be developed to determine if the
actives are being held in the oil/water interface or are being used in corrosion
inhibition.
Q If the surface of a line is clean then the demand for inhibitor in the system
will be at the surface. If in the field the line is not clean then the inhibitor may
become located in the interface.
It is not recommended as a sole technique but if it is used you must ensure
that the corrosion rate and the residuals correlate.
Q (DH) RA from day one is useful to build up a history of the system when
used in combination with other techniques.
It is necessary to use high quantities of chemical throughout the life time if the
system is of high flow.
Q (MJ) These techniques are easy in sweet systems but how do we cope
with sour systems where corrosion products form high surface areas and
solids in suspension?
A (MA) Run corrosion tests on brine. Probes need to be developed for sour
systems.
A Need to conduct long term tests for detection of localised corrosion.
A Need to look at inhibitor availability aqueous testing for partitioning. The
results of some of our testing show that an availability of 95% returns a
corrosion rate of 1% thickness per year. This is not acceptable.
500ppm inhibitor can be used to provide some protection against 20% H2S
system.
Typically need 100ppm for preferential weld corrosion but it is difficult to
translate this to field applications.
Q (GW) Need 500ppm in water to combat partitioning in the oil phase.
43/81
Q (SN) Testing on partitioning in conservative. Oil coats the surface with

inhibitor. Inhibitor mostly in the oil phase can still perform very well testing
for partitioning can be misleading.
Q Could the oil it self inhibit corrosion?
Q Is there an inhibition strategy document in place?
A An oil soluble inhibitor at 90% water cut would be the wrong decision. The
inhibitor selection needs to be based on the system requirements.
A We measure a benchmark and then try to maintain performance within
that.
A Need to check the system requirements regularly operator needs to
perform water-cut tests and deploy the chemical with respect to the results.
A You cant hand responsibility to vendor. The operator is responsible for
deploying the correct levels of chemical.
A Responsibility of corrosion manager. If there is a change in the oil/water
cut they should address the options with the vendor. It is a team effort.
A It gets complicated when there is many wells each behaving differently.
You cant deploy the same in each.
Q (SN) Lab tests show that inhibitor in multiphase systems can change the
phase mix from oil wetting to water wetting. This can increase the inhibition.
Does anyone test for this?
A We test using inhibitor free oil from field.
A Only need to inject ppm oil levels into water to observe a significant
change in performance.
A Oil wetting for inhibitor testing can be misleading especially in gas wells.
How should inhibitor be applied?
Batch - What volume, frequency?

Continuous Is it getting to the surface?
Mixing Do emulsions form? What are the water/oil solubility
characteristics?
Persistency film removal by pigs.
44/81
Discussion Period - How should inhibitor be applied?

Q (GW) We need to design a product for the correct application. The
application requirements need to be communicated effectively.
A (TC) We are reaching the limits of lab testing for inhibitors. We need to
start to optimise in the field. We need to use intelligent pigging to determine
the conditions of the line and then consider the whole picture.
How do we know it is working?
Probes/coupons location?
Fluids analysis Reliability?
Residual analysis Procedure?
Callipers/smart pigging Reliability?
We need confidence in the methods used to determine if our inhibition system

is working effectively.
Discussion Period - How do we know it is working?

Q Field tests for welds work well but it is often best to rely on lab data. What
are the alternatives?
There are more parameters to take into account than just the corrosion
inhibitor. Scale and hydrate inhibitors play an important role as do biocide and
demulsifiers. All of these components require optimisation and they must all
be compatible. It is necessary to test all together to replicate the system in the
field.
Q (SP) Problems with compatibility if inhibitor in oil in water systems is
always blamed on the inhibitor. Are the vendors doing anything to reduce the
oil in water problems?
A Emulsion testing is common place in tests.
A Often people only look at inhibitor rather than the other chemicals. A
combination of demulsifiers etc can be used to reduce oil in water problems
but you need to supply the vendor with an overview of the requirements.
A (MA) Often different companies supply different chemicals and it is
sometimes difficult to obtain a sample for testing.
45/81
A (TC) Working with one chemical supplier is the best way forward and use
their knowledge to develop lab tests for the application.
A (MS) Kinetic hydrate inhibitor solutions can be taken to molecular level to
select the best inhibitor for the application. It is a hard problem to solve.
A (GW) Demulsifying chemicals are surfactants. It is necessary to choose
charged particle elements last out of all the selected chemicals as these offer
more interaction. Once the main chemicals have been selected e.g. biocides,
demulsifiers etc tests for inhibitor interaction can be performed.
Presentation Implementing
Monitoring Effectiveness
SRB
MIC
Mitigation
and
Stephen Maxwell (SM) Commercial Microbiology Limited

Microbial control in oilfields is currently not very good. There needs to be
improvements in the strategy used to combat microbial problems. At present a
typical strategy is to inject 200ppm of glutaraldehyde for 6hrs, once per week.
This does not provide sufficient action to prevent bacterial growth.
The North Sea is relatively clear. Why do we have a problem?
Q Is anyone here today happy that they can control MIC in their systems
with biocide?
A No response
Reason the use of a deaerator. This can also be called a fermenter. The
action of a deaerator forms 100 SRB per litre from a feed of 1 SRB per litre.
You need to inject the biocide upstream of the deaerator for the most effective
treatment.
Other strategies include:
Pigging
Nitrate treatment
UV
Antifouling proteins, etc.
In general:
Biocides - are not applied effectively

Pigging - does not kill SRB but used as MIC mitigation strategy.
Nitrate - mitigates MIC in sea water systems but stimulates pitting in
PNRI.
46/81
UV no comment
Other no real research. Need to monitor for mitigation of MIC.
Injecting nitrate removes the sulphide film and reduces MIC but it is a
continuous process that can not be stopped.
Need to use more biocide
Budgets are developed prior to any development in treatment. You
need to start developing the treatment then decide on a budget for an
effective strategy.
Need to get the strategy correct this requires effective monitoring, currently
in the North Sea monitoring for MIC in not very effective.
The predominant failures in companies today are MIC related.
Mitigation of MIC can be achieved by:
Effective biocide application to prevent SRB.

Nitrate application to deactivate any SRB remaining.
Regular pigging to disrupt activity.
Corrosion inhibitor (however mechanism not understood for MIC)
A combination of all the above.
It is important not to set the MIC control budget before the problem has been
fully assessed.
If your strategy is not working it needs to change! You need to listen to the
microbiologists.
Discussion Period - Implementing SRB MIC Mitigation and

Q (GW) You seem to say the same things in every presentation. Why has
this not progressed (in 20yrs!)?
A (SM) There has been progression over the last four years with the
introduction of nitrogen injection. Nobody seems to listen to microbiologists for
advice on solving the microbiology issues.
Biocides are expensive and there were previously no alternatives. Now we
have effective mitigation with nitrate.
Q If we dont inject sea water then there should be no bugs?
What is the risk of MIC if we shut off our gas line and then start it up again?
47/81
A (SM) People use biocides to stop MIC and reservoirs souring. The most
common biomass within these systems holds the equivalent mass to 25% of
all the biomass in the worlds oceanic systems and was discovered in 1990.
There are many more bacteria to be found so it is a misconception that there
are no bacteria present in reservoirs prior to drilling. The important factor is
that the deaerator generates very high numbers of SRB. This, combined with
very little biocide allows MIC to rapidly occur.
Q What about nitride as opposed to nitrate?
A Nitrate works very effectively but tests have shown high corrosion rates
when nitride is employed.
Q How about nano-filtration in sour reservoirs?
A At 10ppm sulphate there will be little effect. At 100ppm sulphate, the
sulphate can be reduced by filtration but the SRB activity is ignored. SRB
activity is dependent on sulphate therefore you need to reduce the sulphate in
the system to stop it from souring.
Q Does anyone know about accrolium treatments?
A Accrolium is very dangerous, it combusts very easily. It is the best known
biocide but is very difficult to control within pipelines and is very reactive. You
need to add lots for it to be effective throughout the length of the pipeline. We
can control bug with existing chemicals that are less active.
There is now a drive (biocide directive) to develop biocides that are god for
the environment and that dont harm local biological activity.
Q In the early days of reservoirs, injection was not that critical. The strategy
was to remove the oxygen and apply biocide. Injection now however has
become more critical and we are required to inject more and more biocide.
We need to design the injection system to cope with the predicted duty for the
25yr life time of the asset. We are now having problems with maintaining
oxygen at 20ppb, how does this effect MIC?
A On the Forties system there are sections that have high bug numbers and
high rates of MIC. There are also sections with low bug numbers and low
rates of MIC. The section with low bug numbers was exposed to oxygen and
the corrosion rate increased significantly. We need to shift our monitoring from
biocidal monitoring to MIC monitoring. There is no correlation between bug
numbers and corrosion rate. Oxygen at a level of 20 ppb will give a significant
increase in corrosion rate.
Most people monitor biocide efficiency.
48/81
It is important that the correct monitoring strategy is adopted. A typical

mitigation procedure could follow:
MIC prediction - From Pots model*

Apply mitigation
Appropriate monitoring
o Sessile bacterial inhibition coupons
o Sulphide film inhibition easily measured. No film = no MIC
from SRB.
o Monitor population shifts.
o Water/solids control.
Measure mitigation by inspection
o No significant pitting
o Less leaks that expected
o On target to meet design life.
*Pots model attempts to predict corrosion rates in MIC but contains no

microbial or time dependency terms. It is developed from field observations
and experience. Inclusion of Monod kinetics allows incorporation of a time
dependent term and increases the accuracy significantly.
Effective biocide treatment should return clean coupons throughout the life
time of the installation.
Note: SRB numbers can be reduced by nitrate but some SRB can metabolise
nitrate and the SRB population can increase. There is no corrosion however
due to the metabolism of nitrate. It is important to measure the activity rather
that the bug numbers. The respiration can be measured easily. Need to also
measure the water/solids present and determine the effect of pigging your
lines.
The most common technique for measuring SRB is by enumerated planktonic
SRB.
Planktonic SRB do not cause MIC.
Viable counts are only 0.1% effective.
Single serial dilution very variable.
E.g. a count of 10000 SRB/ml is possible from sample containing 690 to
145000 SRB/ml. this equates to a 2log error. This technique is 132yrs old and
is currently the industries state of art!
A recognised improved method is the enumerated sessile SRB.
Only a few platforms monitor sessile bacteria.
A measure of biocide efficiency.
No relationship between SRB numbers and corrosion. This method
cannot be used as a KPI.
We need to understand the limit of bacteria allowable.
49/81
The EEC definition is no more than expected!

Q Will planktonic SRB give an indication of a SRB problem?
A If a move in SRB population was recorded from 1 per litre to 1 per ml then
this could indicate a biofilm has generated. However in planktonic monitoring
it is necessary to use pairs of data and only use trends rather than absolute
numbers.
The typical monitoring schedule for the North Sea (Late 1980s):
Weekly routine Planktonic SRB, Cl-, temp

Quarterly detailed Sessile corrosion rates
Annual review Statistical analysis.
The typical monitoring at the moment:
Annual statistical review only

None at all!
We now have a standard for bacterial monitoring NACE TM0195-2004. Very

few meet the standard.
Microbial monitoring requires:
A measure or prediction of pit initiation frequency and pitting rate.

Improved measurement of SRB population
A measure of SRB corrosive activity (FeS)
An SRB MIC mechanism (H2S, CO2, Organic Acids).
It is possible to apply Fluorescence in Situ Hybridisation (FISH) analysis

which stains SRB, NRB so populations can be identified.
The measurement of hydrogenase does not relate to SRB activity so is not
advised as a monitoring technique.
The oil industry needs to loose the push back that is developed for adopting
new techniques.
Where should we look for MIC monitoring techniques?
Electrochemistry
o Electrochemical noise
o Other electrochemical techniques.
Molecular biology
o FISH
o Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) techniques.
Inspection
o Direct access.
50/81
Discussion Period - Implementing SRB MIC Mitigation and

Q We now know where we are. Where can we get too? If we have a shut
down window, is there anything we can do?
A There are three case histories
1. In the shut down nothing was done and the problems were never
tackled.
2. Alwen During shut down, there was continual treatment with chlorine.
3. Deep sea Pioneer Biocide was injected during the shut down but
then was drained due to the suggestion that it was a safety issue.
Alwen was maintained throughout its life and is still clean 15 years after startup.
It is necessary to take to opportunity during shut downs to soak the inside of
lines with biocide and to hold the biocide in the line for as long as possible.
Q What treatment can you suggest for dead legs?
A If there is a FeS film present then MIC could be a problem unless it is truly
stagnant!
It is best to remove the dead legs to ensure that there is no risk of corrosion.
Q Do dead legs provide a bacteria source that could contaminate the rest of
the system?
A Any bacteria in the dead leg will have been introduced by the system. It is
not likely to have originated in the dead leg.
Q Would it be useful to perform residual analysis on biocide?
A It doesnt hold any information of how effective the biocide is working but
would be useful occasionally to show that it is in the system.
Q Are there any water analysis techniques that allow us to easily detect
bugs?
A DGGE provides information about the populations present in water
samples. It can be used to develop biocide to target particular populations.
We should measure the sulphide level in the pipelines. We need to know how
much sulphide and SRB is in there to determine its activity.
Q What is the best practice for hydrotest treatment for sea water that can be
left in for 18 months?
51/81
A Some biocides are incompatible with oxygen scavenger but only when
there are ppm levels of oxygen. It is necessary to get biocide into the
hydrotest water to kill any bacteria present however it is difficult to discharge
large quantities of biocide. A mild biocide should be sufficient.
Q MIC any comments on definition;
Microbially Influenced Corrosion corrosion that is exacerbated by the

presence of microorganisms (MOs).
Microbial Induced Corrosion corrosion is solely attributable to
microorganisms.
In my experience 90% of cases are microbially influenced corrosion.

A (SM) Corrosion is catalysed by MOs but it depends upon the system. I
think the term should be microbial corrosion. This would incorporate both
definitions.
Q What conclusion can one come to by using these terms?
A All systems have bugs therefore bug corrosion. There is need to select
the correct MO techniques and you need to understand the MIC mechanism
for your system.
Q (SN) How little water is sufficient for bacterial growth?
A Any free liquid water is sufficient for bacterial growth. There is enough
moisture in the air for fungal growth but not bacteria.
There is an SPE ATW on MIC in Calgary in October this year giving more
details on MIC issues.
52/81
Session 5: 13.30-15.30 Performance Measurement.

Session Managers:Stephen Maxwell (SM) Commercial Microbiology Ltd.
Neil Bretherton (NB) Technical Manager; Corrosion,
Technologies Ltd
Champion
Performance measurement is the feed back loop of the system.

Systems fail due to the lack of or deficiency in the interpretation of data.
Presentation Corrosion Performance Measurement

Graham Gibb (GG) Lloyds Register
There are several performance strategies that can be adopted but one that is
common is;
Plan do check improve
This is generally combined with a set of drivers;
Safety money environment
It is useful to examine the HSE guidance document diagram that outlines the
relevance of strategical, technical and peer reviews which all act as feedback
loops in the above performance strategy.
It is possible to use KPIs based on stratigical, technical and peer reviews as a
measure of performance.
Discussion Period - Corrosion Performance Measurement

Q Once KPIs are defined how do you disseminate the information to
platform etc?
A (GG) This can be done in many ways. It is largely dependent on the client
e.g. corrosion awareness may be suitable. The important point is that you
have to learn what works for your setup. If the client owns an asset then they
are more likely to listen to you. You need to have representation from all the
companies involved i.e. production, vendors etc.
53/81
Q Are we good enough when we get all the data from samples that we have
analysed to go back to the supplier and give them good feedback?
Q Managers like KPIs as is shows pro-action. It however is very worrying
as KPIs can become very mechanical. Are they truly representative of how
the asset is maintained?
Q In Russia, leaks are tolerated by agreement from the government. If the
number of leaks per year is lower than the target from the government then
performance is good.
KPIs do not provide a good performance measurement system.
Q Are KPIs fit for the purpose that the asset is designed for?
A Process safety needs to come top of the list. The off shore safety case
needs to be water tight.
Q If the little things are not safe i.e. grating then are the big things?
A Rigs are shut down by the condition of all the safety issues.
A Initial impression of the safety on the rigs can provide an overview of how
the rig is run.
A You can not manage integrity with KPIs. It is meant as a presentation tool
for management. It is not an integrity management tool.
A KPIs are used to push targets in inhibition. They can be made very visual
for operators etc and provide good positive feedback if used correctly and
they should not be related to bonuses! This could induce corner cutting to
gain good KPI performance.
A It can be used effectively at driving a continuous system of improvement.
A In some operations, the employee bonus is linked to budget compliance
and KPI performance. This does not ensure an effective system.
We need to use systems effectively.
A KPIs have management focus. They are a way to generate improvement.
They should be developed to be fit for purpose, continually reviewed and
updated when appropriate.
Performance can be a measure of compliance with the strategy and can be
completed by the use of an activities matrix.
54/81
KPIs need to be developed with care as in many cases 50% compliance can
be achieved by for example by simply taking a water sample. 100% may be
achieved is a sample is taken and analysed. If it was acceptable to achieve
50% compliance then theoretically the KPI targets could be met without
analysing any samples!
Discussion Period - Corrosion Performance Measurement

Q Do the people that work to KPIs every challenge it? Is there any
ownership?
A (GG) No, the system doesnt get challenged.
A We need to put a system in place that gives feedback. I.e. is the system
working correctly/ incorrectly?
We need to give feedback to the people taking the samples.
Communication is the key for the successful operation of our systems.
A It comes down to competent people in the correct place and availability of
data. If these are the responsibilities of a lab technician then we have some
serious problems.
A (GG) In most cases from my experience samples taken from lines are not
analysed.
A Samples that are taken need to be representative of the line in order for
them to be analysed.
A (GG) The data collected needs to be meaningful.
A You can have as many KPIs as you like but if you dont get the basics
correct what is the point? You need the right people to be there are the right
time, effective training and good communication.
A We need systems that function correctly.
Q What is the point of having it if is not being looked at or acknowledged.
Achieving target values
Mostly works fine thresholds on systems should be imposed.
Need interested people who actively participate.
55/81
Pro-active control identifying problems and solving them before they

develop.
There were two examples of KPI matrices that are based on two companies in
reality. The first showed poor compliance to KPI performance and design
objective whilst the other showed good compliance.
Discussion Period - Achieving target values

Q Why did the good example work and the bad example not work?
A (GG) The main difference is teamwork and getting people involved.
A The first example showed poor performance because it was reliant on 3/4
contractors manually entering the data. The second was an automated
system!
A (GG) The true difference is that people are interested and enthusiastic in
the second example.
Q Setting up KPIs is the most important step. Need to all get involved from
an early stage in make sure the process is well defined.
It is possible to introduce tiers of KPIs that are relevant to the job level. This
allows greater detail to be added and forces communication throughout each
tier. This addresses everybody in the system from the operators through to
the managers and gives their work purpose.
Q There is a large divergence in the data in the second example where the
data overstepped the threshold. Is there a KPI in place to control events like
this one?
A If there is a one-off occurrence it is addressed appropriately so that it
does not develop into a repeat occurrence.
Q There seems to be nobody responsible to looking after process KPIs.
Q Here is an example of the successful use of a KPI that was a failure;
KPIs for chloride cooling of heat exchanger. The exchanger contained SS316
plates. The KPI in place says that all new equipment arriving on site has to
undergo analysis prior to installation. The exchanger needed servicing as per
schedule and an engineer came to complete the service. He replaced two
plates in the exchanger and then passed as per schedule. The plates later
failed. The KPI in place had identified the issues with equipment but the
service engineer had managed to fit new plates without the KPI picking him
up. This is a KPI failure.
56/81
Traffic lights can be a useful way to display performance of KPIs.
KPI<80% complete = RED
80%<KPI<90% = ORANGE
KPI>90% complete = GREEN
Discussion Period Traffic lights and KPIs Overall

A Some company systems ban the use of red! It is also common to print
performance without colour!
A The key to good performance is; correct, competent and committed
people.
Q If you have KPIs that are badly run, does this get raise to management?
A Each KPI will have a weighting with respect to urgency. This is
programmed in depending on a safety critical weighting. Any failure should be
a concern of management.
Q Can you be performing at 95% and still have a leak?
A Yes
Q What do you tell the boss then?
A Even if you do everything you can, there is chance that you will be caught
out. KPIs address the issues that you know should be addressed. There is
always some that you havent found yet. The system should be set up so that
these can be incorporated as they materialise.
Asset comparison is an important performance indicator.
How do you compare your strategy with others?
Capital/operational expenditure?
Production losses?
Cost/value delivery
Not just money, concept of risk reduction.
There are often too many variables making comparison very difficult.
57/81
Discussion Period Performance Comparison

Q Does anybody do this? Are there many comparisons made?
A Shell has developed methodology for a global asset review. It assesses
against methodology but is very time consuming and expensive. The results
are presented on a matrix and benchmarked against assets globally.
Q What about joint ventures?
A Shell will do it if you pay!
A Some times performance reviews are done in joint ventures.
A ConocoPhillips perform asset comparisons.
A chart was presented showing the correlation between the probability of
failure and the consequence of failure. The chart took the form of a box and
square plot with axis values from high to low and 1 to 5 respectively.
There is merit on using a system like this but the measurement of
consequence of failure in $ is controversial when the cost of life is taken into
account. Arbitrary values should be used life should not be priced!
This however is a good tool for decision making.
Discussion Period Consequences of KPI Failure

Q The consequence of failure is not just about the loss of life. There is
environmental, equipment, and revenue costs to take into account.
A This concept has to be quantified but cannot be done in terms of life.
Arbitrary values wouldnt be persuasive enough.
A Safety cases in the chemical industry use life as a measure of product
cost within quantitative risk assessment.
58/81
By applying corrosion and integrity management techniques the probability of

failures can be brought down. Safety and reliability management can reduce
the overall consequences associated with a failure.
Q Should safety and reliability management be incorporated into integrity
management?
The overall risk due to corrosion can be presented cumulatively in terms of
cost per year. This is how the problem should be addressed to management.
Presentation Legislative View on Corrosion Performance

Measurement
Andrew Duncan (AD) Health and Safety Executive
In the UK most of the regulations are goal setting regulations that are not
prescriptive.
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 states Dont hurt anybody.
Regulation 5 1999 presents some codes of practice which when followed will
ensure that you are within the law.
Discussion Period Legislative View on Corrosion Performance

Measurement
Q (MJ) Will the HSE accept leaks that lie in certain criteria?
A (AD) The HSE try and be pragmatic as far as the law accepts.
Q (MJ) Are we doing the best we can? We all seem to think that leaks are
acceptable. We should aim for zero leaks.
A I agree that the goal should be zero but we need to be realistic.
Q When you talk about leaks, do you mean leaks to atmosphere? When is a
leak a leak? Is a planned release to the atmosphere a leak?
A Within the UK, it is necessary to report leakage whether major or minor.
Shell records all major significant and minor leaks.
59/81
Session 6: 16.00-17.30 Completing the Cycle

Session Managers:Peter Allison (PA) OFC Technical Services Ltd.
Don Harrop (DH) BP Exploration Operating Co.
We have learnt a lot over the last few days, some provocative but there has
been lots of value for all.
We hope that people have used their time when answering the questionnaires
to reflect on their definitions.
We have come up with 7 topics that we feel should be revisited. Each is
outlined below:1. Competency of people
Limited resource, how do we train people up?
Can we turn a drilling engineer in to a corrosion engineer?
2. Accountability
You need to have individual accountability not a committee!
3. Monitoring
Intelligent pig seems to be the definitive statement how many
people believe that that is the baseline?
4. Design intent
How true are we to the design intent?
Cost associated with failure. How do you build that into the
system (model)?
5. Inhibitors
Issues discussed reflect greater understanding now. What are the
alternative options?
We recognise limitations and need to manage expectations.
6. Bacterial corrosion
An interesting discussion Are we locked in time?
Need to take pragmatic view. We can learn a lot from looking
outside this industry.
7. Safety management
ALARP SFIARP
Is just being compliant with the regulations good enough?
60/81
Discussion Period Competency and Recruitment

Q Does anybody have any additional topics?
A Training and the age profile of the industry.
A Lack of graduates going into science and engineering.
There is a mixed view on the floor as to whether you need to be trained in
corrosion to be a good corrosion engineer. Some think that if you have
general science training then you can move across disciplines.
Generally in engineering the age group with the most experience and
knowledge is the 40+ age group and these people need to pass on their
knowledge to younger people who are just coming into the workplace.
Competency in corrosion engineering comes from years of experience and a
good academic background.
A I entirely agree. Many corrosion engineers have materials degrees
postgraduate qualifications in corrosion and have worked in good corrosion
groups in their workplace.
A We need to bring young people into industry and bring them on.
Mentoring is a useful tool. It can turn good engineers into great corrosion
engineers.
Q We need to tap into the knowledge of experienced people. SPE do ementoring, are there any other ways?
A Young engineers know about corrosion but not about oilfields. They need
to be trained up on the operations in oilfields. Young petroleum engineers
need to be motivated and enthusiastic.
A Some young engineers dont want to experience the field. They are only
interested in office work!
A Those engineers should be sacked! They dont deserve the job they have
if they are not enthusiastic about learning it properly.
A It is often difficult to organise for young engineers to gain experience in
rigs. It can be very frustrating for them.
A Trainees from CML are generally not allowed on the rigs. There is never
enough space! We need to convince operators that trainees need to come off
shore to get the necessary experience.
61/81
A Sentiments echoed. Trainees need; Training, mentoring, time and

experience offshore.
The expectations are very high when they eventually go offshore, how can
they be fully trained if they have no experience offshore?
A To train fully we need to find out what trainees have done during their
mentoring and then make sure our training has relevance to the wider picture
and allow a range of opportunities to be given.
A Recruitment recruit the correct people.
Road shows are a good way to recruit people who are interested in the job.
It is possible to train petroleum architects conceptual studies etc.
Young graduates move through the company to gain experience. If we were
to recruit young engineers from our contractor companies there would be no
young engineers for their business. We need to train engineers up from a
young age. We need to allow young people to come to conferences and
follow up research projects. Maybe SPE could help by having a certification
etc.
A We need to make use of the professional bodies. They can provide
leverage.
A Up till 10 yrs ago there were 18000 new people going into petroleum
engineering. In the last 2 years there have been 1600 new engineers 400 into
the US market and 1200 throughout the rest of the world.
A Big operators need to recognise that the source of engineers is not limited
to US, UK, Europe. We need to look elsewhere.
A We need to go back and think about what our drive was when we decided
to become corrosion engineers. Graduates want money, establishment in the
workplace. We need to nurture them and invest. These are fundamental
things!
A Why dont we write a sitcom! Petroleum is no longer attractive. Why
should graduates go to Aberdeen and work in petroleum. There is nothing in
the media that says these jobs are worth doing!
A Young people find the life sciences more interesting than petroleum
science.
A At shell, we run a summer school that attracts students from all areas.
This allows experience to be gained and us to look at potential engineers of
the future. This scheme appears to be very successful.
A This is an ideal time to recruit new engineers. There has been lots of
media coverage recently on some major failures. We need to make our jobs
62/81
attractive and show that they have immediate impact. We need to use buzz
words to show the importance of integrity management.
A (MJ) Approximately 50% of my job is now mentoring and passing on my
knowledge.
We have doubled the number of recruits this year and the intake is expected
to rise by 20% next year. They are all good candidates, some with industrial
experience. We now have a good advertising team that make the job
attractive. The impact of the job is very much a selling point.
Both my son and daughter independently went into engineering. There is
however a vacuum created in industry by the encouragement of students to
take bachelors degrees. The benefits such as cars and high salaries are too
great to resist. We need people to take more advanced courses but in the
long run it doesnt make sense for them, as they need a much bigger salary to
surpass the benefits they are missing by staying in education.
A We ran a recruitment drive in the UK and no British students turned up!
A Recruitment drives in schools are highlighting that there is very little
interest in engineering.
A At Ohio and UMIST there are many students interested in engineering.
We need funding to run effective recruitment drives and there will be a natural
progression in to the industry. Recruitment from different backgrounds is also
possible.
A There is no problem in recruiting people from different backgrounds.
A Service companies are suffering heavily as many production companies
poach engineers.
A This is due to young people now wanting to move around and experience
different jobs.
Discussion Period Intelligent Pigging

Q - Following the leaks in BP pipelines, does anybody know the state of all of
their pipelines? When were they last intelligently pigged?
The belief is at the moment that intelligent pigging solves corrosion issues!
Are intelligent pigs necessary to give us confidence in the condition of our
lines?
A We are learning that intelligent pigs are not the answer. They do not
provide all the necessary information to determine the quality of the line.
63/81
We will develop better more effective tools in time. Long lines contain many
corrosion mechanisms. The morphology of corrosion means that the pigging
systems need to be very good. They are not currently good enough.
A Intelligent pigging is used as an inspection tool. Corrosion mitigation
cannot be done just by inspection. More tools are needed. We need to ensure
that we are working within the design intent. Pigs are good tool to check this.
There are however many lines that will not accommodate pigs!
Discussion Period Inhibitors

Q Are you still all comfortable with the use of inhibitors?
A Yes!!
Q Do you feel as an operator you should have an equal opportunity for
development of corrosion inhibitors?
A Vendors need information from operators for development. We need very
specific information about the application for effective development of
inhibitors.
A There are many more projects now completed as a joint project between
operator and vendor.
A There are often good partnerships formed between vendors and
operators that allow the boundaries to be pushed forward.
A Many vendors in the past were owned by large operators. There was no
need for partnerships.
Competition between vendors is essential for good development. The cost of
chemicals is very high and we are stretching the limit of existing chemicals.
There needs to be new development.
A The operating limits of assets have changed considerably when these
chemicals were introduced. Technical advances will catch up with the
operating limits but it will take time.
A Many operators do not appreciate how long it takes to develop inhibitors.
A Alliance with suppliers allows chemistry to be pushed. Joint ventures
allow scope for development and achievement. We need to get the design
concept correct.
A Chemicals are only considered after vigorous testing. What are your
opinions?
64/81
A Many chemicals are designed for severe applications. They often do not
work for lighter duties.
A Shell has a pre-qualification for inhibitors that they have to meet before
they are used. This outlines the required characteristics for the application.
A This is a good development tool for specific applications.
A The pre-qualification results are sometimes however not accepted or
trusted by the operators. This system doesnt appear to address all the
requirements.
A It is however the start of a potentially good system.
A Selecting inhibitor for several samples is a method often employed. This
often identifies inhibitors that are close to application needs but some often
require further development for the specific duty. It would be good if there was
a global qualifier!
Q Do you think that in 10 years we will have the same MIC problem
addressed by Stephen Maxwell in his presentation today?
A Yes (Majority)!
65/81
Day Three Thursday 22nd June 2007

Session 7: 09.00-13.00 The Way Forward.
Session Managers:Robert Stalker (RS) Scaled Solutions Ltd
George Winning (GW) - Integrity Team Manager, Clarient Oil Services
Workshop questions feedback

There were 27 questionnaires returned from 64 attendees.
In general the responses were very similar. This is positive and shows that
there is common understanding of corrosion and integrity management across
the industry. It is especially positive when the diversity of people in the room
across the industry is taken into account.
Presentation The Use of Probabilistic Modelling

Kirsten Oliver (KO) Capcis
We need a tool to assist our decision making.
We can use probabilistic modelling to collate, interpret and report data.
What do we need to collect depends on risk.
What do we want to know When is asset going to fail.
How can we manage the risk pro-active repair an additional
mitigation tool for helping to assess the pipeline for internal corrosion?
Discussion Period Use of Tools for Corrosion Assessment

Q Does anybody use mixtures of tools for corrosion assessment?
A We examined the possibility of using a mix of tools and it was good for
assessing corrosion mechanisms.
Q How can it be pulled together?
A It could be pulled together in a traffic light system.
A Within KPIs
66/81
Q How can KPIs show that the include everything?

A Ownership should be used to ensure availability and regular reports of
progress should be made. The KPI systems should be developed to measure
and address key issues. Performance indicators should be selected carefully
to ensure feedback is provided.
Q Does this depend on the significance of detail?
Probabilistic analysis, sensitivity and significance should be used as well as
KPIs to ensure that management issues are handled correctly.
We need to look at alternative ways to assess pipelines as well as intelligent

pigging.
Discussion Period Intelligent Pigging

Q How many of your pipelines have been intelligently pigged?
A All that needs it! The question should be. How many pipelines are fit for
purpose?
We dont condone leaks but there is no clear way of managing strategy.
Safety, environment and reputation are all issues that require management.
One of our objectives is to build up tools for operators to use for their integrity
management.
Using modelling tools it is possible to build up a cumulative metal loss profile
for a pipeline.
Monte Carlo simulation allows a distribution of corrosion rates to be generated
in an attempt to quantify the uncertainties in the output.
Data
Refine
Output
Analysis
Model
67/81
The distribution profile can be displayed by plotting a histogram or a

probability profile which is also known as an s-curve.
A broad s-curve presents a distribution with high levels of uncertainty.
The models that we use provide knowledge of; age, fluid history, pigging
frequency, velocity and many more pipeline properties to gain as much
accuracy as possible.
This technique allows statistical significance to be measured so for each data
set, min, max and mean data is collected. The number of data points used in
the technique is vast. Each is then fed into the corrosion models built into the
system where the distribution of corrosion rate data is generated.
The aim of this system is to predict the remaining life of pipelines. It can
however be used for sensitivity analysis. The data generated can be
presented as Tornado plots where the sensitivity of corrosion rate to each
parameter can be seen.
It can be similarly used for screening pipelines during risk assessment and as
a tool that will effectively present data to management.
Discussion Period Techniques for Corrosion Assessment

Q (GG) The model is giving an assessment of corrosion. Does it take into
account the strength of the pipeline?
A The model doesnt take into account any external parameters. It only has
capability for internal corrosion.
Q Does it include the temperature profile?
A This is user dependent. It can be set up to include the temperature profile
if this can be programmed into the models embedded in the system.
Q What is the view of the HSE on the model?
A The HSE has a very useful database containing relevant corrosion data.
Our model uses the data and provides an indicator of internal corrosion.
Q How confident are you with the output if there is no intelligent pigging data
entered into the model?
A Intelligent pigging data contains uncertainties and is not always available.
The model will run without pigging data providing there is some form of
corrosion monitoring data present.
Q Can you use this to justify intelligent pigging runs?
68/81
A It has been used for that.

Q Can you start a baseline when there is already corrosion damage in the
line?
A A cumulative corrosion profile provides an indication of corrosion damage
even when there is damage already present.
Q Do you use the inhibited rate or the non-inhibited rate?
A Both can be used.
Q Can it be used to measure inhibitor performance?
Q What are the next steps?
A look for flow assurance water hold-up. We need to build in mechanical
issues.
Q Can you make allowances for damage incurred during period of no
inhibitor?
A Yes. It gives an indication of what is going on in the system.
Q (SP) We dont have many pipeline failures. Is there data from the HSE
that we could access?
A (AD) There are limitations with our data. We only have data that is within
500m of installations. Pipeline division may more pipeline data.
Q Does the model differentiate data from different techniques i.e. coupons.
Does this affect the accuracy?
Does it accommodate an increase in thickness due to replacement sections?
A The model runs differently depending on the data entered but the
accuracy is dependent on the accuracy of the data entered.
The model does accommodate new pipe sections but the pipe wall thickness
limits may require modification.
Q Does the model consider TDS, under deposit corrosion, and preferential
weld corrosion?
A The model considers TDS from Pots model and other considerations from
models that are also incorporated.
Q (MJ) Many failures in pipelines are associated with extreme value
statistics. Is there any way for the model to take into account extreme value
statistics?
69/81
A Yes. The model is very adaptable. It is based on a combination of

corrosion models and interpreting the data.
Q Do you need to define what constitutes a failure e.g. probability of
leakage?
A You need to develop a practical indicator or comfort factor.
Q Extreme values may encounter problems. It is difficult to run enough
Monte Carlo simulations to accurately predict extreme values. The limiting
factor is the processing power of PCs.
Knowledge Transfer Joint industry projects: Operators View

Why do we need joint industry projects (JIPs)
Experts are limited in numbers/time to give input into R&D. Their focus
is needed in the core business.
How do we benefit from sharing complex issues with partners?
Vast number of tests needed.
Different routes for data collection.
Exchange of knowledge.
Strength of knowledge increases.
Financial advantage as cost is shared and tax relief advantages.
Financial leverage
New testing facilities.
Keep involved and visible
With scientific community.
In education
Sponsor research
Problems
Efficiency of knowledge transfer
o It is often hard to define the problem.
o What do we actually want
Difficult to determine what we need. Projects can deviate from the
initial objective.
Time is often very limited.
Models, simulations used to facilitate decisions
Provide continuous global view.
Need to know the limits.
Extrapolating is difficult and uncertain.
70/81
JIP needs to be derived for the answers needed.

Quality of reporting is essential for good results.
o Systematic, self-standing, pragmatic, honest.these are not
easy to consistently achieve.
o Electronic databases with validated results.
Discussion Period Knowledge Transfer

Q How do we transfer knowledge to operators and through the
organisation? Do we all have the same problems?
A (MJ) JIP results can be posted on secure websites. There can be access
to a variety of sources globally.
We need to jump the hurdles of time and volume of information. It is not easy.
The use of this information is largely by people in a critical manor only.
A Points made are correct and valuable. The definition of the problem is
very difficult. The researcher is often the instigator of JIPs. It is necessary to
include an incubation period for understanding the problem definition and the
work to be done. There needs to be focus on the output, the form of data and
the methods used for presentation.
A (SN) There are big issues with project definitions. After the initial project
proposal there could be 1-2yrs of thought and development before a viable
project is finalised.
We are trying to set up a searchable website to allow empirical data to be
presented.
There are issues with cross-referencing relevant data searches. This may
only offer limited use but there is scope for more development.
A Drifting from the initial scope of the JIP can be avoided theoretically by
concentrating on specialised JIPs.
A JIPs are for building knowledge and framing problems for specific testing.
A (MJ) What do operators need to know? JIPs should address the
problems that need to be addressed. E.g. how many JIPs are addressing the
problems associated with pitting corrosion? We need to be honest with what
we as operators need and we should drive the research! The system for
generating JIPs should to change, in order to address the real problems
observed in the field.
A (SP) JIPs could be used as a vehicle to generate industrial standards. A
technical committee could be set up to mediate results of JIPs.
71/81
A We need to think about the required output from an early stage.

A We need to also agree on test methods.
The diseases
The advantage syndrome
o I am the one who has the knowledge therefore I am the best!
Passing on syndrome
o The results are just passed on to the next person without
anybody talking on the responsibility to act on them.
Flooding syndrome
o Too much information
Scope syndrome
o Nobody feels trained enough to analyse the results!
Finding the cure is the most difficult issue.
Day to day discussions necessary.
Forums should be used to transfer knowledge.
Subsidiaries should be set up to held cope with the information.
Challenges
How do I disseminate what I have learnt from my JIPs throughout my
organisation?
Knowledge Transfer Joint industry projects: Research

Institutes View
Egil Gulbrandsen (EG) Institute for Energy Technology
What is our role as a research institute?
There is nothing as practical as a good theory
We need good fundamental understanding to put action into progress.

Understand established principles and know how to best use them.
It is still very hard to control corrosion. It is a thermodynamically
favourable process that happens all the time!
The measurement of corrosion is difficult. Corrosion occurs in a region
only a few angstroms thick. Only a few tools provide the necessary
resolution.
72/81
Q Why cant we control corrosion but we can travel to the moon?

A Going to the moon was the vision of a president. This was given all the
resources and support necessary. Corrosion is a different story.
We need to do field specific work.

We should work together and not as competitors.
What do we deliver?
Reports data presentations
Tools models and databases etc
Candidates.
How do we make information manageable for industry?
Define project objectives and deliverables.
Extract essential conclusions.
o Relevant to objectives with out drowning in technical details.
Deliver tools such as models, test methods and guidelines.
Consultancy and follow-up.
Some factors that can improve knowledge transfer.
Improved fundamental understanding.
Precise definition of terms
Consensus work (Best knowledge)
More journal type publications to allow refinement of arguments.
What do we need from industry?
Information (More) about the problem and conditions etc.
General understanding of industrial needs.
It is desirable to have more feedback on implementation of ideas etc.
Where are we currently standing?
CO2 mechanism is well understood. Prediction can however become
better as knowledge of temperature effect is developed.
We cant yet predict H2S, OAs. These need more work.
Mitigation techniques need work.
Inhibitors are currently good but robustness needs to improve.
o The understanding of their interaction with other chemicals
needs to improve.
o The stability across pH ranges also needs to improve.
Discussion Period Knowledge Transfer and JIPs

Q JIPs are very useful for developing testing and standards. Can you
transfer the knowledge by talking?
73/81
A (SN) A recent meeting with the Academy of Science Corrosion

engineering of the 21st century highlighted that 20% of knowledge was
transferred through publications. 80% of knowledge is transferred through the
movement of people from one organisation to another. Internships may be the
key. Young people spend lots of time learning before they come to industry
we need to use their skills effectively.
The difference between travelling to the moon and corrosion engineering is
the drive, money and support. It is not impossible to control corrosion, we just
need to increase our vision and focus.
Q If we all spend money on training then we all see the benefit when young
engineers move on.
Conferences need to be more open to suppliers and operators.
Q There are lots of choices when initiating JIPs. Often the answers are also
overlapped. Is this overlapping common?
A (TC) Overlapping is common. We have suggested to many of our external
lab JIPs that they should work together!
A (SN) There is nothing wrong with overlaps in research. It can be used as
a good quality assurance. In universitys it is common o see 20-40% overlap
to ensure that results and techniques are consistent and reliable. There are
large risks and uncertainty if only one person is doing the work.
Q (SP) A concern of mine are concepts that lack maturity e.g. 25Cr cracking
at 80C this should not happen but it does, why?
Q (CJ) Issues with management can arise if your JIPs are similar.
Management might not see the importance o funding three JIPs for the same
output!
Regulatory Framework Guidance for Corrosion and Integrity

Management
John Wintle (JW) TWI
Reflection Is there a role for an integrity manager. What duties will that role
include?
Current Guidance
o Specific technical.
o Managerial processes.
Guidance in preparation
Gaps in guidance
74/81
Guidance in managerial processes

o HSE research report 2006/509
o Plant ageing management of equipment containing hazardous
fluids and pressure. www.hse.gov.uk/researchrrppdf/rr509.pdf
o HSE OTO 2001/044 review of corrosion management
o Four main sections:
1. Awareness
2. Getting organised
3. Finding/identifying ageing
4. addressing ageing
Accumulated Damage
The typical trend for accumulated damage in pipelines
1) Post
commissioning
2) Risk based
3) Deterministic 4) Monitored
HSE OTO 2001/044 is a document for corrosion management of

offshore oils and gas processing. It was initially edited by Capsis then
later revised by the Energy Institute.
HSE OTO 2001/044 is a subset of the integrity management document

and provides guidance for good practice.
It provides a safety management framework
Note: 40% of delegates in the room were familiar with this document
UKOOA asset integrity toolkit

75/81
o Contains checklist of processes involved in asset integrity

management.
o Few references to corrosion.
Note: 25% of delegates were familiar with this document.
Ideas for new guidance:
Topside integrity indicators (leading and lagging).
Corrosion hotspots.
Life extensions.
Discussion Period Guidance for Corrosion and Integrity

Management
A All of the documents are free to download from the HSE website.
Q (MJ) Are these documents suggestions or regulations?
A These documents are only Suggestions. The HSE is goal setting and nonprescriptive. Official guidance has regulatory impact.
Q (SP) Within the Norwegian regulatory system which is also goal setting
there are documents available that detail requirements for project life
extensions. Is it being considered that a formal assessment is required to
extend the life of an asset?
A Some criteria are being developed for this, detailing the processes that
duty holders need to undertake. There needs to be a long term review and
projection into the future.
A (AD) Offshore safety critical elements have to be safe and fit for purpose
at all times. Do we need to issue any further guidelines?
A In the UK there is requirement for continual improvement in safety case.
Regulatory Framework Corrosion, Pipeline Integrity and US

Federation Regulation and Legislation
Cliff Johnson (CJ) NACE
The estimated annual cost of Corrosion is 3%GDP
76/81
$20bln is spent in the car industry on corrosion prevention. This is

considerable higher that spent in the oil and gas industry however they have
managed to control their corrosion problem!!
The thought shared by many is that cost reductions need to be maximised in
order to reduce the total cost of the project. Whist this is often true the cost of
corrosion needs to be considered carefully.
We need to spend more on corrosion prevention in order to reduce the overall
cost of the project.
E.g. 1) Bellingham, WA
Failure due to corrosion 3 killed.
Nobody knew what to do with all the monitoring data!
E.g. 2) Carlbad NM
Internal corrosion caused gas leak and explosion 12 dead
The blast damage was a scale synonymous with a bomb!
E.g. 3) Dec 13 1993 - Gas pipeline failed due to stress corrosion cracking.
Failure was catastrophic.
What is the public perception of pipelines?
o Hidden hazards
o Invisible dangers
Q Are big energy companies making too much money?
This doesnt mean you are going to be safe!
US legislation is largely prescriptive with some small elements of goal setting.
The US government looks to prosecute companies who dont follow legislation
correctly.
In the US the general trend in serious accidents due to corrosion is
downward.
When accidents do occur
E.g. 5 year old Bridge collapsing due to corrosion of steel rebar.
Bridge fell onto road which had luckily been cleared of traffic by a local
policeman. Nobody was killed.
77/81
The response of the US Federal Governments is to introduce new regulations

and legislation to prevent similar accidents happening again. This response is
very re-active.
Hazardous liquid rules

o Prescriptive
Natural gas rules

o Direct assessment.
o Pigging not possible in gas lines.
The US State adopted 2 standards in communicating with industry for

liquid/gas lines.
Available http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/iim
Congressional response
o Law prosecution bills are focus
o OPS to develop stronger relations
What is next case?

o As systems age
o Need for more standards
o R&D
o Technology transfer
o All tiers need to know what to do
Discussion Period - Corrosion, Pipeline Integrity and US Federation

Regulation and Legislation
Q Do you think new law will be more prescriptive or goal setting?
A In the US graduates have the responsibility of draughting bills.
Prescriptive law gives control to the authorities. It is also measurable.
Q Do you think the American oil industry is strong enough to lobby against
the law?
A It is easier to lie low. Congress wants to show the public that they are
doing something.
The perception in the US is that oil and gas companies have killed the world.
If they agree with any bills that congress write then they wont pass. Bills are
seemingly only used to hinder oil and gas companies.
Canada, US and Latin America are all adopting similar regulations. They
should work together. The opportunity is there to change public perceptions.
78/81
NACE is willing to champion a change but needs the backing of other bodies
and companies such as SPE, BP, and Shell.
The next challenge is Bio!
Q In the UK it is a requirement to submit a safety case to the HSE. The HSE
then can then act in three ways.
1. Reject the safety case for amendment
2. Accept the safety case but wont approve the case
3. Accept and approve the safety case.
How does this work in the US?
A Government tell companies what to do. If they dont follow the rules then it
is their fault and if an accident occurs they are liable for prosecution. If the
rules are followed there is difficulty in prosecution.
Cases in US courts involving industry and technology dont often hold up.
Technology is often considered to complex.
79/81
Poster Presentations
REB Field Corrosion & Integrity Management: Corrosion Inhibition &
Surveillance Program Gordon Rowan, BP
RE B Field Corrosion & Integrity Management

Corrosion Inhibition & S urveillance P rogram
RE B Field Contacts: Walt lamb S r P etroleum E ngineer: RE BP etroleumE ngineer@ ALGRE B.com.dz
Gordon Rowan & Tim Allen RE B Field Advisors: RE BFieldAdvisor@ ALGRE B.com.dz
Rhourde El Baguel (REB) Field Location
Time Lapse Tubing Calipers for Well RB 45

350
300
August 2001
July 2002
February 2004
June 2006
299
283
270
256
250
Number 200
of Tubing
Joints 150
100
50
34
20
0
0%
REB Reservoir and Wells
Cambrian sandstone reservoir faulted and highly fractured.

Reservoir ~1,800 ft thick, ~9,000 ft deep.
Original oil in place is ~2.4 Bbbls, Oil recovery to date is ~20% .
P erm. 0.1 -10 md, P orosity ~8% , P ressure ~ 1,900 psi, Temp. ~ 210 F.
Current wellstock of 43 producers and 9 injectors.
Gas injection of ~0.7 Bscf/d for reservoir pressure maintenance.
1-10%
11-20%
Reservoir gas is ~4% CO2 & wells produce small amounts of water.
Gas/Oil ratios up to 40,000 S CF/S TB.
Relatively high gas velocities in many wells.
S ome wells are > 30-years old, most about 8 years old.
E arly J V corrosion inhibition was inadequate.
Rocks produced in some of the open hole completion wells.
Halite and BAS O4 S cale problems in many of the wells.
21-40%
41-85%
>85%
Percentage Body Penetration
Time Lapse Tubing Calipers for Well RB 42

200
185
August 2001
July 2002
August 2004
February 2007
168
150
140
REB Integrity Challenges
Mostly carbon-steel tubing, flowlines, and manifolds.
Number
of Tubing
Joints
100
90
67 70
61 60
50
46
44
27
9
0
0%
1-10%
11-20%
21-40%
41-85%
>85%
Salt Deposition in Tubulars
Rocks Produced up 4-1/2

Tubing String RB58 Well
Time-Lapse Tubing Calipers for Well RB 52

200
Waiver Well
July 2002
January 2003
October 2003
March 2004
February 2005
171
161
150
157
153
136
117
108
Number
of T ubing 100
Joints
RB45 Well Initial Completion in

March 1998 with 4-1/2, 12.6
lb/ft, P110, CS Tubing.
<<< 18 months later tubing
severely corroded with multiple
holes at various depths in the
well. Well worked over in
December 2000.
97 94
81
50
31
23
18
0%
29 31
20
3
1-10%
11-20%
21-40%
14 14
13
41-85%
>85%
Wellhead Coupon Corrosion Data from Well RB 70

1.0
0.8
Probe at Wellhead
Target Corrosion Maximum
0.6
0.2
0.0
Mar-07
Dec-06
Jun-06
Sep-06
Mar-06
Dec-05
Sep-05
Jun-05
-0.2
Dec-04
Fresh water treated with S cale Inhibitor & Oxygen S cavenger pumped
down a S S Control Line and injected into the tubing via a Water Injection
Mandrel and Valve.
Continuous Injection of water soluble Corrosion Inhibitor into the S S
Control Line to protect tubing from the water injection mandrel to surface.
Oil S oluble Corrosion Inhibitor pumped in Batch Treatment down tubing
monthly to protect tubing from tail to surface.
Corrosion Coupons installed in flowlines for monitoring corrosion rates.
Corrosion P robes installed in flowlines for monitoring corrosion rates.
Tubing Caliper S urveys run on 20 wells per year for corrosion monitoring
of well tubing with 16 and now 24 finger calipers.
Internal Tree Inspection performed on an annual basis for corrosion.
Weekly Reports issued on corrosion monitoring results.
All Information stored in a Corrosion Database for evaluation.
Adjustments made to the Corrosion Inhibitor concentrations/rates on an
individual well basis based on corrosion coupon, probe and caliper surveys.
Replacing Carbon S teel with S uper 13 Chrome Tubing on work over wells.
Corrosion
Rate
0.4
(mm/year)
Sep-04
REB Corrosion Control & Monitoring Methods
Mar-05
Corrosion Inhibition and Monitoring Program Developed and

Initiated in 2001 with refinements on an as needed basis.
REB Corrosion and Integrity Management Program
Recognized as a best practice by the BP S urveillance Network
Control Corrosion rate using Continuous and B atch Treatment

Corrosion Inhibitors for the tubing and flowline to reduce corrosion
rate of carbon steel piping.
Monitor Corrosion Rate with Corrosion Coupons, P robes and
Caliper S urveys, NDT Testing and Visual Inspections.
Adjust Corrosion Inhibitor concentrations and frequency based on
monitored data.
Replace Carbon S teel Tubing with S 13Cr Tubing when well
workovers required.
80/81
Workshop Summary Are we Doing the Best we Can?

We are now doing much better than we were.
If in 5 yrs time we came back and asked to question. Would the answer be the
same?
What can we take away from this workshop?
Improve communication.
Design a plan.
Implement the plan.
Use information correctly.
Disseminate the correct information.
Learn from others.
Understand the laws.
New friendships and contacts.
Invest for the future.
81/81

Corrosion & Integrity MGMT

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Corrosion & Integrity MGMT

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SPE-ATW Corrosion and Integrity Management: Are we Doing the Best we Can?

SPE Workshop Report

Corrosion and Integrity

Author - Peter Smith

Presentation Causes of Corrosion in Corrosion Resistant Alloys............ 28

Discussion Period Legislative View on Corrosion Performance

Day One Tuesday 19th June 2007

Presentation - Corrosion and Integrity Management: are we

We have come along way since the early explorations in the

How far have we come in corrosion mitigation technology?

many and the technology required for this is continually improving.

The overall corrosion community is performing very well

Where are we going wrong?

Health and Safety Regulations

What do we need to improve?

Fabric and maintenance,

Session 1: 9.30-12.30 Materials Selection & Integrity

Session 1 - Introduction (MS)

Presentation - Pipeline Corrosion and Integrity Management

Every pipeline is corroding.

The objective of integrity management is to;

Identify drivers of corrosion;

Location, workforce, local pipeline content and quality,

Inhibit corrosion of pipelines;

Material selection carbon steel?

Develop erosion design philosophies;

Sizing topside operations using industrial models e.g. Tulsa model,

Make critical decisions;

Selection of contractors need experience,

Discussion Period Use of Software in Corrosion Management

A Very little knowledge built into corrosion predictive software (Latest

Discussion Period Corrosion Inhibitor Issues

A From an operation point of view it is necessary to make sure production

Weld corrosion is a major concern in oil and gas installations. It is a localised

It only takes the failure of one weld to cause a major problem.

Discussion Period Weld Corrosion Issues

Murphys Law of pipeline corrosion;

Corrosion will occur where there is no monitoring,

Discussion Period Monitoring Methods

A (TC) In perspective, corrosion monitoring is there to tell us what changes

Discussion Period Corrosion Damage Measurement

Presentation Meeting the Design Intent

It is necessary to adopt a life-cycle approach and avoid project

Discussion Period Meeting the Design Intent

Must ensure that the requirement for insulation is addressed early

Discussion Period Coatings and Insulation Issues

Discussion Period Use of Corrosion Resistant Alloys

A (MJ) Metallurgists and materials scientists have developed many alloys

Discussion Period Design Standards

Presentation Materials Selection and Integrity Management

Corrosion monitoring - Why do we get it wrong?

What can we do?

Our corrosion monitoring philosophys need lots of development. They should

Discussion Period Inspection Issues

The mixes of metallurgies,

Session 2: 13.30-15.30 Causes of Corrosion.

Presentation Causes of Corrosion

Mechanism of sweet corrosion.

The overall reaction:

Mechanism of organic acid corrosion

Organic acids such as acetic acid are very corrosive.

Discussion period CO2 and Organic Acid Corrosion Mechanisms

Sour corrosion (H2S) mechanism