Online, Real-Time Corrosion Monitoring of Hydrocarbon Pipeline,

Plants and Facilities – Development & Experience

Dr. Russell D. Kane

InterCorr International, Inc.
14503 Bammel North Houston Road, Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77014 USA
rkane@intercorr.com

Abstract
This paper describes the requirements and experience with online corrosion monitoring
technology. It describes the results of field investigations performed to characterize the
corrosion behavior in inhibited multiphase hydrocarbon transport lines, water injection
facilities, and hydrocarbon processing facilities. The emphasis of will discussion is modern
multi-technique electrochemical monitoring instrumentation incorporating electrochemical
noise (ECN) and linear polarization resistance (LPR) techniques. The paper describes recent
advances in ECN technology (e.g. microchip encoding and distributed hardware with direct
to DCS capabilities) that have made it possible to apply automated ECN monitoring on
commercial and industrial applications on a real-time basis. This automated, online corrosion
monitoring has made it possible to actively involve plant personnel on a real-time basis to
minimize corrosion, maintenance, failures and associated costs. Data is presented that was
analyzed on-line, real-time, and correlated with short-term upsets in process operation
enabling a troubleshooting exercise to be undertaken and ultimately validating the
effectiveness of the existing chemical treatment and remediation programs.

Introduction
Both onshore and offshore, operators of oil and gas production facilities are working hard to
reduce cost while increasing safety. To a great extent this has followed increased public
awareness resulting from several highly publicized accidents in which spills of hydrocarbon
fluids have resulted in wide spread environmental contamination and significant civilian loss
of life. The result has been increased monitoring efforts that have included aerial
photography, external cathodic protection surveillance, internal pipeline inspection and
corrosion monitoring. Furthermore, increased regulatory involvement has followed in an
effort to maintain consistency of data gathering, assessment and reporting to reduce the
presence of dangerous conditions.
Background

Internal Corrosion vs. Other Types of Damage

As shown in Figure 1, internal corrosion remains a major problem in oil and gas surface
facilities and pipelines. Nearly half of all production pipeline leaks result from internal
corrosion versus 15 percent from external corrosion, 10 percent from third party damage, and
25 percent for all other causes combined. Even more importantly, data from many sources
indicate that localized corrosion results in between 75 and 90 percent of all corrosion failures
in industrial field and plant applications. This makes corrosion assessment an important
consideration.

Direct Assessment Methodologies for Internal Corrosion

In a effort to reduce leaks and catastrophic failures, operators are increasingly using direct
assessment methodologies. These are methods that provide a direct indication of the system
health and integrity. In addition regulators are also working to minimize such requirements
where operators have an organized program which allows information of various types and
from multiple sources to be integrated and analyzed, and assessments made. An ongoing
corrosion monitoring and management program is one way that has been successful in
reducing overall risk while also reducing surveillance costs.

However, for a corrosion monitoring program to totally effective, it needs to be “looking” for
corrosion in the right places and it must be able to distinguish between different types of
corrosion phenomena. For example, corrosion monitoring techniques need to be able to
differentiate between general and localized (pitting) corrosion. Pitting results from loss of
protection on the surface of the metal and the development of local anodes and cathodes on
the metal surface that drive the corrosion process. A problem with conventional techniques is
that they only measure the current associated with the overall (general) corrosion process.
Previously, it has require direct examination of corrosion coupons to derive information on
pitting corrosion tendencies. However, newer techniques are available that look at the local
fluctuations in the corrosion signals (electrochemical noise - ECN) in addition to the general
corrosion current (See Figure 2). These method provide a quick responding signature of the
localized tendencies well before they are manifested in general thinning or highly destructive
pits. A listing of applicable patent and published technical literature on the ECN technique
and analysis has been given in previous publications over a 20 year period. [1-18]

In a basic sense, this means that monitoring points need to be carefully selected and not just
simply placed in convenient locations. This is because most leaks resulting from internal
corrosion usually a caused by the production of a corrosive fluid that is trapped in a particular
location that is left undetected for a prolonged period. Commonly, these are locations where
water can pool such as regions of low flow (<3 m/s), low spots in a pipeline or piping system,
and poorly draining areas. It may also be areas immediately preceding a large rise in
elevation where water and debris can pool and be forced to continually slug through the
system. Here the combination of water and turbulence can result erosion corrosion. Other
factors that relate to undesirable corrosion problems are high levels of carbon dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide, and chloride in the production environment. However, local problems can
also develop that result from leakage of air into the system from pumps or when injected with
chemicals, or where the presence and growth of bacteria result in corrosive conditions.

Limitations of Corrosion Monitoring

Important considerations in a corrosion monitoring program are that monitoring points need
to be carefully considered in advance. They should be based on specific system
configurations (e.g. low spots, local turbulence, injection points, stagnant areas, etc.),
environmental severity and potential for upsets. Multiple monitoring points in the system are
also critical so that system upsets can be located and identified. However, very commonly,
corrosion is monitoring where it is convenient rather than where it needs to be performed. It
can often in a vertical pipe section rather than in a horizontal section where the water and
debris would tend to pool. It may be on a platform export line rather than in the sea floor
pipeline. Finally, it maybe where a technician can access the pipeline for removal of
corrosion coupons or probes rather than in a turbulent confluence of two flow streams.

Historically, one of the major limitations of corrosion monitoring is that it has been viewed
only in a historical sense. That is, the data may have been taken with corrosion coupons
exposed to the environment for a relatively long period (30 to 90 days). Then, after-the-fact,
the weight loss is tabulated and sent to a corrosion engineer who then tells the operator that
there was a corrosion problem sometime in the past. Even when corrosion monitoring is
conducted online and real-time, the data is typically sent to the corrosion engineer who may
or may not have access to the production data. Such correlations could be made, but then the
corrosion engineer again brings the historical data to the operator after the incident is past.

Finally, corrosion equipment has historically been associated with large boxes of computer
equipment that can not be easily interfaced with process control systems. Additionally,
corrosion monitoring systems have not used the same communication protocols and accessed
the same network as mainstream process monitoring equipment going back to the control
room. However, as shown in Figure 3, modern instrumentation has now been made smaller
and utilizes distributed hardware that can be located at the monitoring point. It can also send
signals that can be transmitted to the control room directly through the plant data loop, via
wireless communications or other SCADA systems and does not require a separate host
computer.

Using Corrosion and Process Data to Insure System Integrity

In order to be of maximum value in assessing operating systems and prescribing preventative
actions, corrosion monitoring data needs to be online and real-time. Additionally, the
corrosion data needs to be directed to those people that have control of the system on a real-
time basis in a simple form so that they are evaluate it in the same manner and frequency they
do for temperature, pressure, flow rate and pH. There is a growing trend to get operators
involved in the corrosion control process. They are also looking for upset conditions on a
routine basis so it is a natural extension to the process control function to relate process and
corrosion data. This allows instant correlation of increasing corrosion rate and/or pitting
tendencies to changes in production conditions on a real-time basis. With the addition a
computer network, the operator can also have assistance of corrosion or process specialists
and actively share data with them to decide the relevance of trends while situations are
current rather than after the fact (See Figure 4).

Benefits of Real-Time Corrosion Monitoring

Effect of Varying Corrosion Inhibitor Dosage on Fluid Corrosivity in Main Oil Line.
Figures 5 a-b indicates the rapid process control feedback afforded by on-line monitoring.
During a corrosion inhibitor pump upgrade, the monitoring data was able to show
immediately the effect of varying the corrosion inhibitor dosage rate. This segment shows
the effect of the upgrade in corrosion inhibitor injection pumps on the platform. Observations
included:
 Prior to the upgrade, inhibitor was being injected at up to 40ppm - the average corrosivity
value was about 0.35mm/yr.
 After a pump upgrade, a higher dosage of corrosion inhibitor was being injected, at
>70ppm, the fluid corrosivity in the Main Oil Line dropped immediately to an average
0.15mm/yr.
 When the dosage rate was decreased to approximately 45-46ppm, the corrosivity rapidly
increased to 0.25mm/yr average.
The effectiveness of the pump upgrade can be seen quite clearly, and the corrosion probe was
later employed to also demonstrate the effectiveness of new inhibitor treatments as they were
introduced into operation.

Figure 5b also shows the ability for corrosion monitoring to identify periods of localized
corrosion using a localization (pitting) index. This method statistically analyses the scatter of
the current response relative to the value of the corrosion current on a time basis. During
episodes of high pitting as observed when the pipeline corrosion inhibitor dosing was stopped
quickly resulted in high values of localization index. Another peak in the localization index
was observed during the re-starting of the inhibitor prior to establishment of a uniform
inhibitor film. Similar observations were made when the inhibitor concentration was too low
or where the inhibitor formulation did not provide high resistance to pitting corrosion.

Pipeline Condensate Fluid Corrosivity During a Gas Plant Upset. Figure 6 depicts the
response of on-line corrosion monitoring in a condensate line to an unforeseen gas plant
upset. Observations included:
 The larger of the two “spikes” (labeled A) in the data is associated with a gas plant upset.
 The background corrosion rate value falls well within the prescribed limits of the
corrosion management program.
 The value of the monitoring in this case is shown in the confidence that the condensate
line is under excellent corrosion control – most of the time; however, it was also shown
that corrosivity “spikes” needed added attention to minimize future corrosion problems.

The “on-line” aspect of the monitoring means that operators are alerted almost immediately
to the effect of plant excursions on corrosion activity. Moreover, they are enabled to
implement remedial measures to manage the corrosion and rapidly alerted when problems
occur. In situations where immediate mitigation of corrosion is not possible, the continuous
recording of the corrosion rate data can be displayed in terms of total pipe wall loss resulting
from the excursion events.

Water Injection Header Fluid Corrosivity. Figure 7 shows the sensitivity of corrosion
monitoring to bacterial activity in an injection water system. Corrosion monitoring and
corrosion coupons were installed in an HP water injection header. Observations included:
 In the trend graph, the corrosion rate data shows “noisy” characteristics which are typical
of localized corrosion activity caused by scaling of the material surface. This scale build-
up is characteristic of microbial activity (e.g. SRB), which was later confirmed by
microbiological analysis of the scale formed on adjacent corrosion coupons. The value of
this information is that it is real-time information able to alert the operator to the problem
(even before microbiological work could scheduled and performed) and gave an
indication of the level of corrosion damage sustained prior to initiating cleaning of the
pipework and vessels.
 Following replaced by a clean probe, the corrosion data shows a dramatic fall in corrosion
activity to a level which is more representative of the corrosion control afforded by
corrosion inhibitor and biocide chemical treatments. The value of this information is that
it tells the operator how well production fluid chemistry is being controlled on a real-time
basis when decisions can be made to maintain system integrity.

The information available from corrosion monitoring of both clean and scaled surfaces
enabled the platform integrity team to manage scale deposition to acceptable levels. Probes
at this location were cleaned and replaced every six months on a rolling replacement basis
with the data compared before and after probe cleaning episodes.

Conclusions
The conclusions and observations from the field monitoring can be summarized as follows:
 Modern multi-technique, electrochemical monitoring instrumentation facilitated the
acquisition of real-time monitoring data and on-line analysis of both ECN and LPR data,
producing direct display of corrosion rate and localization indices.
 The implementation of on-line corrosion monitoring techniques provided valuable
insights into the effects of short-term difficulties in pipeline and process operation on the
long-term integrity and serviceability of the pipeline and related systems.
 Corrosion monitoring provide an indication of the overall effectiveness of chemical
treatment programs in controlling the corrosion rate within target levels.
 Real-time corrosion monitoring techniques proved to be responsive overall to the
characterization of transient (upset) corrosion behaviors including those that could result
in pitting.
 Under steady-state corrosion conditions the corrosion rates derived from both EN and
LPR techniques were in close agreement.
References
1. K. Hladky, US Patent # 4,575,678
2. D.A.Eden, D.G.John, J.L.Dawson, US Patent # 5,139,627
3. D.A.Eden, R.N.Carr, J.L.Dawson, US Patent # 5,425,867

4. D.Halford, “A General Model for f Spectral Density Random Noise with Special
Reference to Flicker Noise 1/f," PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE. VOL. 56. NO 3.
MARCH 1968
5. K,Hladky, J.L.Dawson, “The Measurement of Localised Corrosion Using
Electrochemical Noise,” 1981, CORROS. SCI. 21 (4), 317-322
6. K,Hladky, J.L.Dawson, “The Measurement of Corrosion Using Electrochemical 1/f
Noise,” 1982, CORROS. SCI. 22, (3), 231-237
7. R.C.Newman, K.Sieradzki, “Correlation of Acoustic and Electrochemical Noise in the
Stress Corrosion Cracking of Alpha-Brass,”May 1983, SCR.METALL. 17, (5), 621-624
8. J.L.Dawson, K.Hladky, D.A.Eden, “Electrochemical Noise – Some New Developments
in Corrosion Monitoring,” 16-17 Nov. 1983, UK Corrosion ’83 – Proceedings of the
Conference, 99-108, (The Institution of Corrosion Science and Technology, Exeter
House, 48 Holloway Head, Birmingham B1 1NQ, U.K.)
9. J.L.Dawson, D.Gearey, W.M.Cox, “Recent Experience of Monitoring Condensed Acid
Corrosion in Boiler Flue Gas Ducts,” 16-18 Nov. 1982, 193-198, UK National Corrosion
Conference, (The Institution of Corrosion Science and Technology, Exeter House, 48
Holloway Head, Birmingham B1 1NQ, UK"
10. K.Hladky, J.P.Lomas, D.G.John, D.A.Eden, J.L.Dawson, “Corrosion Monitoring Using
Electrochemical Noise: Theory and Practice,” 16-17 Feb. Corrosion Monitoring and
Inspection in the Oil, Petrochemical and Process Industries 1984, London, UK, 211-231,
(Oyez Scientific and Technical Services, Bath House, 56 Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A
2EX, U.K.)
11. W.M.Cox, D.M.Farrell, J.L.Dawson, “Corrosion Monitoring for Process Control,” 1985,
Dewpoint Corrosion, 191-217, (Ellis Horwood, Market Cross House, Cooper Street,
Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1EB, U.K.)
12. W.P.Iverson, L.F.Heverly, “Electrochemical Noise as an Indicator of Anaerobic
Corrosion,” 22-24 May 1984, Corrosion Monitoring in Industrial Plants Using Non-
destructive Testing and Electrochemical methods, Montreal, Canada, 459-471, (ASTM,
1916 Race St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, USA)
13. J.Gollner, I.Garz, K.Meyer, “Electrochemical Noise and Its Use for Corrosion
Experiments,” 1986, KORROSION 17, (5), 244-249
14. D.A.Eden, M. Hoffman, B.S.Skerry, “Application of Electrochemical Noise
Measurements to Coated Systems,” 1985, Polymeric Materials for Corrosion Control, 36-
47, (American Chemical Society, 1155 16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, USA)
15. C.Gabrielli, F.Huet, M.Keddam, H.Takenouti, “Application of Electrochemical Noise
Measurement to the Study of Localised and Uniform Corrosion,” Nov. 1985, 8th European
Congress of Corrosion, Vol 2, P37.1-937.7, (Centre Francais de al Corrosion, Societe de
Chimie Industrielle, 28 rue Saint-Dominique, F75007 Paris, France)
16. G.L.Edgemon, P.C.Ohl, G.E.C.Bell, D.F.Wilson, CORROSION/96, Paper No. 094, NACE
International, 1996.
17. G.L.Edgemon and G.E.C.Bell, Technical Basis for Electrochemical Noise Based Corrosion
Monitoring of Underground Nuclear Waste Storage Tanks, Westinghouse Hanford
Company Report, WHC-SD-WM-TI-772, November, 1996.
18. G.L. Edgemon and G.E.C. Bell, CORROSION/98, Paper No. 383, NACE International,
Houston, TX, 1998.

60

50
Percent of Pipeline Failures

40

30

20

10

0
internal external 3rd party other
corrosion corrosion

Figure 1 – Distribution of Oil/Gas Pipeline Failure by Cause

Corrosion Potential

Current Noise Fe = Fe2+ + 2e -

Potential Noise Rn = V/I

H+ + e - = H

Current
Figure 2 – Schematic of modern electrochemical noise monitoring system.
 1995
1995
1992
1992

2001
2001

1997
1997

CorrMeterTM

Figure 3 – Evolution of Corrosion Monitoring Equipment

Field Installation

Remote Unit

Specialist
when needed

NEMA box & probe Control Room Display

Figure 4 - Implementation of an online real-time corrosion monitoring solution;

data sharing via DCS with unit operator and corrosion specialist.
 Main Oil Line Corrosion Rate from Electrochemical Noise
Dosage Dosage
Increased Decreased
to 70ppm to 45ppm
Corrosion Rate, mm/yr

0.6
0.5 Corrosion Inhibitor injected at 40ppm

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
01-Jun-97
01-Jun-97

01-Jun-97
01-Jun-97
01-Jun-97

01-Jun-97
02-Jun-97
02-Jun-97

02-Jun-97
02-Jun-97
02-Jun-97

03-Jun-97
03-Jun-97
03-Jun-97

03-Jun-97
03-Jun-97
Time, days
Average
Corrosion Average Corrosion
Rate down Rate stabilized at
Average Corrosion to 0.15 0.25 mm/yr, less
Rate 0.35 mm/yr mm/yr than initial rate

Figure 5a –Influence of inhibitor dosage (40 ppm to 70 ppm to 45 ppm)

with time on oil line corrosion rate.

0.9

0.8

0.7
Inhibitor
Inhibitor Off
Off Measurement
Measurement of of localized
localized
Inhibitor
Inhibitor On
On corrosion
corrosion events
events during
during
LOCALIZATION INDEX

0.6
inhibitor
inhibitor “off”
“off” period
period and
and
during
during re-establishment
re-establishment of
of
0.5 Series1
inhibitor
inhibitor film
film after
after re-start.
re-start.
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
7/12/01 12:16

7/13/01 11:16

7/14/01 10:18

7/15/01 17:02

7/16/01 16:02

7/17/01 15:04
7/10/01 14:11
7/10/01 21:51

7/11/01 13:13
7/11/01 20:53

7/12/01 19:56

7/13/01 18:56

7/14/01 17:58

7/16/01 23:42

7/18/01 10:27
DATE / TIME

7/8/01 16:06
7/8/01 23:47

7/9/01 15:08
7/9/01 22:51
7/10/01 6:31

7/11/01 5:32

7/12/01 4:33

7/13/01 3:36

7/14/01 2:37

7/15/01 1:39
7/15/01 9:21

7/16/01 0:42
7/16/01 8:22

7/17/01 7:23
7/8/01 8:26

7/9/01 7:28

Figure 5b –Localization (pitting) index versus time for periods of

inhibitor injection
DATE /and
TIME no injection.
 ECN monitoring data confirms condensate line under excellent corrosion control
during normal operations

0.2
Co
rr
0.15
osi
on 0.1
Ra
te 0.05
,
m 0
m/ 18- 23- 28- 3- 8- 13- 18- 23- 28- 2-
yr Jun- Jun- Jun- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Aug
97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 - 97
Time,
A
days
“Spikes” indicating transient excursion conditions

Figure 6 - Influence of gas plant upsets on pipeline corrosion rate.

ECN data shows “spikes” of localized corrosion New “clean” ECN/LPR

activity at the fouled surface, also an increasing probe installed - note that
trend in background corrosion rate the corrosion activity is
now seen as low level
Corrosion Rate, mm/yr

uniform corrosion
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
9-Mar-00

5-Apr-00
3-Mar-00

17-Mar-00
20-Mar-00

25-Mar-00
1-Mar-00

6-Mar-00

11-Mar-00
14-Mar-00

22-Mar-00

28-Mar-00
31-Mar-00

2-Apr-00

8-Apr-00

Time, days

Figure 7 - Corrosion rate versus time plot for fouled and clean probe.