Corrosion Control and Monitoring in Seawater Injection Systems

Standard Practice

Corrosion Control and Monitoring in

Seawater Injection Systems

This NACE International standard represents a consensus of those individual members who have reviewed this document, its scope, and provisions. Its acceptance does not in any respect preclude anyone, whether he or she has adopted the standard or not, from manufacturing, marketing, purchasing, or using products, processes, or procedures not in conformance with this standard. Nothing contained in this NACE International standard is to be construed as granting any right, by implication or otherwise, to manufacture, sell, or use in connection with any method, apparatus, or product covered by Letters Patent, or as indemnifying or protecting anyone against liability for infringement of Letters Patent. This standard represents minimum requirements and should in no way be interpreted as a restriction on the use of better procedures or materials. Neither is this standard intended to apply in all cases relating to the subject. Unpredictable circumstances may negate the usefulness of this standard in specific instances. NACE International assumes no responsibility for the interpretation or use of this standard by other parties and accepts responsibility for only those official NACE International interpretations issued by NACE International in accordance with its governing procedures and policies which preclude the issuance of interpretations by individual volunteers. Users of this NACE International standard are responsible for reviewing appropriate health, safety, environmental, and regulatory documents and for determining their applicability in relation to this standard prior to its use. This NACE International standard may not necessarily address all potential health and safety problems or environmental hazards associated with the use of materials, equipment, and/or operations detailed or referred to within this standard. Users of this NACE International standard are also responsible for establishing appropriate health, safety, and environmental protection practices, in consultation with appropriate regulatory authorities if necessary, to achieve compliance with any existing applicable regulatory requirements prior to the use of this standard. CAUTIONARY NOTICE: NACE International standards are subject to periodic review, and may be revised or withdrawn at any time in accordance with NACE technical committee procedures. NACE International requires that action be taken to reaffirm, revise, or withdraw this standard no later than five years from the date of initial publication and subsequently from the date of each reaffirmation or revision. The user is cautioned to obtain the latest edition. Purchasers of NACE International standards may receive current information on all standards and other NACE International publications by contacting the NACE International First Service Department, 1440 South Creek Dr., Houston, Texas 77084-4906 (telephone +1 281/228-6200).

Revised 2007-11-05

Approved 1999-06-25 NACE International

1440 South Creek Drive Houston, Texas 77084-4906

+1 (281)228-6200

2007, NACE International

NACE SP0499-2007 (formerly TM0299-99)

Item No. 21237

Mengfei Guo - Invoice INV-293193-TFRMKS, downloaded on 1/7/2010 1:05:33 AM - Single-user license only, copying and networking prohibited.
DMalakoffText BoxISBN 1-57590-083-1

SP0499-2007

NACE International i

_________________________________________________________________________

Foreword

This NACE standard practice provides guidance in controlling and monitoring for corrosion, bacteria, and water quality to corrosion engineers, field corrosion, production, technical, and operating personnel, and others involved in corrosion control of seawater injection systems. This standard includes descriptions of equipment and practices for controlling and monitoring corrosion in seawater injection systems. This standard was originally adapted from a report produced by the former Corrosion Engineering Association (CEA), which operated in the United Kingdom under the auspices of NACE

International and the Institute of Corrosion (ICorr)(1)

The standard was developed as a test method

(TM) in 1999 by Task Group (TG) T-1D-47, a component of Unit Committee T-1D on Corrosion Monitoring and Control of Corrosion Environments in Petroleum Production Operations, and revised in 2007 by TG 345 on Corrosion Monitoring in Seawater Injection Systems: Review of NACE Standard TM0299-99. During the 2007 revision, the TG decided to change the designation of the standard from a TM to a standard practice (SP). TG 345 is administered by Specific Technology Group (STG) 31 on Oil and Gas ProductionCorrosion and Scale Inhibition. This standard is issued by NACE International under the auspices of STG 31.

In NACE standards, the terms shall, must, should, and may are used in accordance with the definitions of these terms in the NACE Publications Style Manual, 4th ed., Paragraph 7.4.1.9. Shall and must are used to state mandatory requirements. The term should is used to state something considered good and is recommended but is not mandatory. The term may is used to state

something considered optional.

_________________________________________________________________________

(1) Institute of Corrosion (ICorr), Corrosion House, Vimy Court, Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire LU7 1FG, United

Kingdom.

Mengfei Guo - Invoice INV-293193-TFRMKS, downloaded on 1/7/2010 1:05:33 AM - Single-user license only, copying and networking prohibited.

Me

SP0499-2007

NACE International

_________________________________________________________________________

NACE International

Standard Practice

Corrosion Control and Monitoring in

Seawater Injection Systems

Contents

1. General .......................................................................................................................... 1 2. The Need for Corrosion Control .................................................................................... 2 3. Corrosion Control in Seawater Injection Systems ......................................................... 2 4. Monitoring of Seawater Injection Systems .................................................................... 4 5. Materials Selection for Seawater Injection Systems ..................................................... 9 References ........................................................................................................................ 10 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 1 Layout of a typical water injection system, indicating recommended chemical

treatment locations and monitoring points .................................................................... 1 Table 1 NORSOK Recommendations for Injection System Materials ............................ 9

_________________________________________________________________________

ii

ngfei Guo - Invoice INV-293193-TFRMKS, downloaded on 1/7/2010 1:05:33 AM - Single-user license only, copying and networking prohibited.

SP0499-2007

NACE International

_________________________________________________________________________

Mengfei Guo - Invoice INV-293193-TFRMKS, downloaded on 1

Section 1: General

1.1 This standard covers aspects of corrosion control and monitoring in seawater injection systems. 1.2 Most seawater injection systems rely on coatings, liners, plastics, composite materials, and corrosion-resistant alloys (CRAs) to overcome potential corrosion problems prior to deoxygenation. The practices in this standard concentrate more on controlling and monitoring corrosion in facilities downstream from deoxygenation, but also address some of the aspects relevant to selection of appropriate mitigation and control methods for upstream service conditions. The standard also addresses materials selection for seawater injection systems. 1.3 This standard presents practices for controlling and monitoring corrosion in seawater injection systems.

/7/2010 1:05:3

However, many of these practices may be applied to other types of water injection systems, such as: (a) Systems for reinjection of produced water; (b) Aquifer-sourced water injection systems; and (c) River or surface water injection systems. 1.4 Figure 1 shows a typical layout of a water injection systemin this case, an offshore application. The purpose of Figure 1 is to show equipment items typically associated with water injection systems and common fluid treatments and monitoring types and locations. It does not show all items of equipment or all possible fluid treatments or monitoring types that can be used in water injection systems.

Seawater lift pump

Deaerator tower

Coarse filters Fine filters Injection pumps Booster pumps

Seawater lift caisson

Injection discharge header

Flowlines

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(3) (5) (6) (7)

(8)

(9)

(9) (9) (9) (9)

(10) (10) (10) (10)

K ey to Figure: (1) Addition of chlorine/electrochlorination (2) Addition of filtration agents (3) Chlorine monitoring upstream and downstream of deaerator (4) Injection of organic biocide (5) Galvanic probe (6) pH, oxygen and residual oxygen scavenger monitoring (7) Monitoring of suspended solids, sessile and planktonic bacteria (8) Oxygen monitoring downstream of injection pumps (9) Probes/coupons/bioprobes on injection discharge header and flowlines (10) Wellhead monitoring of flowrate, temperature and pressure

FIGURE 1: Layout of a typical water injection system, indicating recommended chemical treatment locations and monitoring points

Key to Figure: (1) Addition of chlorine/electrochlorination (2) Addition of filtration agends (3) Chlorine monitoring upstream and downstream from deaerator (4) Injection of organic biocide (5) Galvanic probe (6) pH, oxygen, and residual oxygen scavenger monitoring (7) Monitoring of suspended solids, sessile, and planktonic bacteria (8) Oxygen monitoring downstream from injection pumps (9) Probes/coupons/bioprobes on injection discharge header and flowlines

(10) Wellhead monitoring of flowrate, temperature, and pressure

1

3 AM - Single-user license only, copying and networking prohibited.

SP0499-2007

2

_________________________________________________________________________

__________________

Mengfei Guo - Invoice INV-293193-TFRMKS, do

Section 2: The Need for Corrosion Control
2.1 The importance of controlling corrosion damage in the carbon steel (CS) pipework of a seawater injection system to ensure the integrity of topside and downhole equipment and minimize system operating and maintenance costs is widely recognized. 2.2 Equally important is a requirement to avoid reservoir formation blockage by corrosion by-products and bacterial debris in seawater injection wells. In oil fields in which recovery of reserves is from a formation with permeabilities of a few millidarcies,
(2) this requirement can influence the

acceptable level of corrosion and the methods of monitoring and control. Corrosion products (e.g., iron oxide and

___________________

wnloaded on 1/7/2010 1:05:33

sulfide) and bacterial biomass have caused considerable damage, even in formations with high permeability. 2.3 The necessary corrosion control strategy is largely dictated by whether the major intent is to control corrosion damage or to minimize formation damage. Therefore, the overall philosophy of operation should be system-specific. When considering corrosion in seawater injection systems, the effect of velocity and entrained solids should also be considered. In addition to technical considerations, the corrosion control philosophy may also be dictated by environmental considerations or regulatory requirements, particularly regarding allowable chemical treatments.

____________________________________

Section 3: Corrosion Control in Seawater Injection Systems
3.1 Corrosion in seawater injection systems is usually caused by the presence of oxygen, bacteria, or concentration cells from solids in the seawater. 3.2 Deaeration (i.e., removal of dissolved oxygen) should be used to control oxygen corrosion in seawater injection systems.
3.2.1 Mechanical deaeration of the seawater is usually achieved by passing production gas through the seawater in an exchange tower, or by vacuum deaeration in a tower. 3.2.2 When production gas stripping is used, the corrosiveness of the stripping gas is a factor that may require special attention, particularly when the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the produced gas dissolves to form a corrosive solution, or when produced or fuel gas contains hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or sulfur dioxide (SO2).

3.2.3 Mechanical deaeration alone may not be efficient enough to reduce the oxygen concentration to a level at which the corrosiveness of the seawater is acceptable. 3.2.4 In addition to the long-established system of gas stripping and oxygen scavenging in a tower (see Figure 1), commercial methods that are more compact and are well-suited to applications in which space is at a premium have become available. Such systems differ from conventional larger gas stripping towers in that they use a recirculating nitrogen stream as the stripping medium, which is then regenerated for further use. The use of chemicals for oxygen removal may be reduced

or eliminated by the use of such units, depending on the ultimate water quality required. In such systems, there is often a resultant reduction in pH, and this should be considered when selecting materials for construction of equipment downstream from such units.

3.3 An oxygen scavenger, such as ammonium or sodium bisulfite, shall be added to the seawater after mechanical deaeration to ensure adequate oxygen removal to control corrosion by oxygen.

3.3.1 The type and quality of the oxygen scavenger used is a key factor.

3.3.1.1 Sodium sulfite, a dry powder, must be dissolved in water and is not very soluble. The solution, being dilute, reacts quickly with atmospheric oxygen if stored in an open container exposed to air. 3.3.1.2 Ammonium bisulfite and sodium bisulfite, manufactured in liquid form and not required to be dissolved in water prior to injection, are more convenient to use. These are concentrated solutions and are not as sensitive to air exposure. Ammonium bisulfite is the more concentrated of the two and is somewhat more resistant to degradation from exposure to air. However, both of these materials should be stored to eliminate or minimize exposure to air.

____________________________ (2)

millidarcy: 0.001 darcyunit of measure of permeability; from Petroleum Engineers Handbook (Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1987).

NACE International

AM - Single-user license only, copying and networking prohibited.

SP0499-2007

Mengf

3.3.2 Oxygen scavengers require time to react with the oxygen, and the part of the system immediately downstream from the scavenger injection point may not be totally protected against oxygen corrosion. 3.3.3 The rate of reaction of the scavenger with oxygen depends on several factors, including the formulation of the oxygen scavenger, the pH, the presence of interfering ions such as sulfide and calcium, and the temperature. Some oxygen scavengers can be catalyzed (e.g., bisulfites by the addition of cobalt [15 parts per billion (ppb) of 2% cobalt chloride solution]) to speed up the reaction. Addition of the catalyst separately has been found to have the most beneficial results in speeding up reaction time. The presence of H2S can slow reaction rates and interferes with catalysts. 3.3.4 In some systems, there has been evidence to suggest that excessive amounts of oxygen scavengers above those required to stoichiometrically remove oxygen can lead to an increase in the corrosion rate. 3.3.5 There have been suggestions that oxygen scavengers may undergo a chemical reaction under some circumstances, producing H2S in small quantities, and this could affect the corrosion rate under actual system conditions. This theory is based on the results of laboratory tests. This view is currently not widely supported. Greater quantities of sulfide may potentially be released in the system as a result of the activity of sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB).

3.4 Both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria are normally present in seawater and can become active in different parts of the injection system.

3.4.1 Oxidizing biocides (primarily chlorine [Cl], although bromine [Br] has a similar effect) should be used for control of microorganisms in the aerobic part of the seawater injection system (i.e., upstream from oxygen removal). Cl can be generated by electrolysis from seawater, added via a gaseous source, or injected as an aqueous solution of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) or chlorine dioxide (ClO2).

3.4.1.1 Chlorine is an oxidizing agent and tends to increase the corrosiveness of seawater in most situations. Therefore, the Cl concentration at the generation plant should be controlled, and the addition of Cl should be precisely metered so that the amount injected does not exceed the Cl demand. Excess Cl present after deaeration may increase the corrosiveness of the seawater and/or cause pitting corrosion in the part of the system that is not constructed of material resistant to

NACE International

ei Guo - Invoice INV-293193-TFRMKS, downloaded on 1/7/2010 1:05:3

seawater under oxidizing conditions. As an oxidizing agent, excess Cl increases the oxygen scavenger requirement. 3.4.1.2 The part of the system upstream from oxygen removal is usually constructed of materials such as duplex stainless steels (SSs) that are resistant to seawater containing oxygen and low concentrations of oxidizing biocides. To ensure that this resistance is maintained, precautions should be taken to prevent local accumulation of Cl, especially under shutdown conditions. 3.4.1.3 Aerobic bacteria upstream from deaeration are normally controlled by Cl additions. Anaerobic bacteria can be controlled to an extent by Cl injection. However, SRB are resistant to oxidizing biocides and can still flourish in many places in seawater injection systems.

3.4.2 Organic biocides should be used to control anaerobic bacteria in the seawater injection system downstream from the deaerators, where monitoring has shown there is a potential problem. Care should be taken when selecting suitable biocides. In addition to their own effectiveness as biocides, they should be considered as part of the overall chemical cocktail in the water injection system. Incorrect selection of biocide can cause compatibility issues with other chemicals, particularly oxygen scavengers. In some cases in the field, compatibility issues have been severe enough to warrant switching off oxygen scavengers during biocide injection and vice versa, resulting in less than optimum treatment of the water injection system. Experienced chemical treatment companies with appropriate documented testing should be consulted to ensure that a fully compatible range of chemicals can be specified.

3.5 Solids in the seawater should be removed or reduced to a minimum if required to reduce corrosion in the injection system. Corrosion may occur under deposits, which can generate oxygen concentration cells. Solids present in the seawater may also cause erosion-corrosion, particularly at bends or restrictions in the system.

3.5.1 Filtration of the seawater is commonly used to reduce solids in the injection system, which can form deposits in the bottom of injection lines and set up concentration cells and harbor bacteria. Filtration agents such as ferric chloride and/or polyelectrolytes are often added to the seawater to aid filtration.

3.5.1.1 Care should be taken to avoid excessive dosage of ferric chloride that can increase corrosion in the seawater injection system.

3


SP0499-2007

4

_________________________________________________________________________

Mengfei Guo - Invoice INV-293193-TFRM

Section 4: Monitoring of Seawater Injection Systems

4.1 Corrosion in seawater injection systems should be monitored using probes (such as linear polarization resistance [LPR], electrical resistance [ER], or galvanic probes) and corrosion coupons installed on the common discharge header between the final-stage pumps and the injection wells. If there are particular concerns (e.g., regarding flow effects), flow lines to individual injection wells should also be monitored.

4.1.1 Injection systems operate at high pressure, so safety is a concern. Equipment installation and use must conform to sound engineering design and safe operating practice to avoid the potential safety hazards associated with system pressure.

4.2 The location of monitoring facilities varies according to the design of the particular system and information requirements based on the local corrosion problems in the injection system or the chemical treatment program, as dictated by the monitoring and corrosion-control philosophy.

4.2.1 Corrosion-monitoring and oxygen-measurement devices should be located downstream from water injection pumps, where oxygen ingress may occur as a result of faulty pump seals. 4.2.2 Monitoring devices intended to reveal problems caused by the activity of SRB in a seawater injection system should be located further downstream, such as in the flow line immediately upstream from the seawater injection wells. 4.2.3 In locating corrosion-monitoring facilities close to injection wellheads, consideration must be given to factors such as the relative flow rate to different wells and the location of choke valves or orifice plates. Although in most cases seawater injection wells might be expected to be under pressure at the wellhead, sometimes the wellhead is under vacuum, in which case the monitoring device location may require additional evaluation. 4.2.4 Turbulence because of close proximity (particularly downstream) to chokes, orifices, tees, bends, and other flow disruption sources can create high shear conditions. Monitoring devices should be located 5 to 10 pipe diameters away, if possible. Monitoring devices may also be mounted close to the turbulence-inducing source to evaluate shear stress effects rather than in locations with little or no shear stress.

4.3 Corrosion-Monitoring Devices At least two monitoring devices should be located at each corrosion-monitoring point. Normally, one of these should be a corrosion coupon set, and the second should be a

KS, downloaded on 1/7/2010 1:05:33

corrosion-rate measuring probe. Device geometry (e.g., element types) may have an effect on corrosion rate information obtained, and thus may influence any relative assessment of data. The orientation of obtrusive monitoring devices and position across pipe flow can influence the quality of data obtained and should be considered at the design stage. For example, if devices are exposed close to the pipe wall, the variable rheological conditions, particularly around an access fitting, may adversely influence the data quality. Therefore, devices should be located away from the pipe wall, tee-pieces, access fittings, and bends, unless specific effects associated with velocity or turbulence are being monitored.

4.3.1 Corrosion Coupons

4.3.1.1 76-mm (3.0-in) long strip coupons are the type most commonly used in seawater injection systems. They are usually installed in pairs, with the face parallel to the flow. 4.3.1.2 The coupon should be made from the same specification of material as the injection system being monitored. 4.3.1.3 Flush-disc coupons, although possibly offering a better insight into pipe wall corrosion, are insensitive relative to strip coupons in detecting changes in system operation (e.g., corrosion from oxygen), and therefore should not be used alone unless the sole purpose is to investigate pipe wall corrosion rates. 4.3.1.4 Cylindrical or rod-type coupons are used in some installations. They are reliable and may not be subject to edge effects (strip coupons sometimes corrode badly at an edge as a result of metal-working stress or velocity effects). They also can be used in a multiplace fitting so time studies of corrosion rates can be made. In many cases, however, corrosion morphology cannot be detected with rod-type coupons. 4.3.1.5 Coupon exposure times should be evaluated to find the optimal exposure for proper monitoring. The exposure time of the coupon should normally be one to three months, depending on system requirements. The exposure time should be dictated by the severity of corrosion and/or system velocity.

4.3.1.5.1 Too short an exposure time (e.g., less than one month) is likely to yield a result higher than a true average corrosion rate during the period of exposure.

NACE International


SP0499-2007

N

Mengfe

4.3.1.5.2 A freshly exposed, clean metal surface initially corrodes faster. A minimum exposure period of approximately one month reduces the influence of the initial period on the overall mass loss. 4.3.1.5.3 When the mass loss is small, any error is likely to be magnified. A short exposure period may not adequately demonstrate deposit growth trends, concentration, or other effects that might require more time to develop. 4.3.1.5.4 Too long an exposure time (e.g., longer than three months) might provide information at intervals too infrequent to be of use in controlling the process or the effectiveness of the chemical additives.

4.3.1.6 The use of a multiple-coupon device, such as a multichuck fitting, should be considered, and coupons should be pulled at different intervals to determine whether corrosion is occurring and to optimize future exposure intervals. 4.3.1.7 Corrosion-monitoring data obtained from installations mounted on top of the line can be contaminated by effects from entrained gas, oily matter, or deposits such as iron sulfide (FeS). Gas may break out, causing loss of contact between the coupon and water. Oily matter and deposits may coat the coupon and isolate it from the water. Bottom-of-the-line installations can be affected by erosion caused by sludges, sand, or silt in high-velocity systems, or by deposits in low-velocity systems. In most cases, the effect of erosion is most noticeable when coupons are mounted toward the bottom of the line. In situations in which SRB are active, bottom-of-the-line installation may be more indicative of their effects.

4.3.1.7.1 Sand or silt may affect not only the results, but also the life of the monitoring installation. Access fitting threads can be progressively worn by abrasive solids in bottom-mounted locations unless special precautions, such as back-flush attachments on the retriever, are used. 4.3.1.7.2 Bottom-of-the-line sampling may be particularly useful when there are problems caused by abrasive solids.

4.3.1.8 Other factors to consider when locating monitoring installations include the position of coupons. Occasionally, coupons are mounted across the pipe wall itself or in sample traps that may be influenced by the flow effects and the anticipated corrosion mechanisms. Shear stress generated by flow can remove protective scale.

ACE International

i Guo - Invoice INV-293193-TFRMKS, downloaded on 1/7/2010 1:05:33 A

4.3.1.8.1 Similar shear stress effects may be observed if coupons are installed immediately downstream from a valve or bend because of flow disturbance. Generally, the distance from either side of a bend where flow distortion is assumed to have decreased sufficiently to eliminate shear stress effects is approximately 5 to 10 times the pipe diameter.

4.3.1.9 Localized corrosion effects may be visible on corrosion coupons after exposure. These include edge effects at either the leading edge (impingement), the trailing edge (cavitation), under coupon insulation or elastic band (crevice corrosion), or on the face of the coupon (various types of pitting or selective attack). Pitting morphology is usually more obvious on strip coupons than on rod-type coupons unless it is obscured by velocity effects. 4.3.1.10 Observations made at the time the coupons are removed from the system should be recorded and used to complement a more detailed deposit analysis carried out later. Certain spot tests may give information that will not be available after the deposits have been oxidized by the atmosphere. Photographs taken at a field laboratory prior to testing and photographs of coupons following testing provide valuable records. 4.3.1.11 Various methods of surface preparation are used for strip or cylindrical corrosion coupons. The most commonly used method involves grit or glass-bead abrasive blasting to a specified finish. Alternatives include grinding, which some operators prefer to use because of the ease with which pitting corrosion can be detected.

4.3.2 LPR Probes

4.3.2.1 LPR probes are particularly helpful for identifying upsets involving fluid contamination, process changes, or chemical treatments in water injection systems. They are valuable for assessing effects of chemical additives such as corrosion inhibitors. 4.3.2.2 Electrical shorting caused by corrosion deposit build-up on LPR probes is particularly associated with flush-type probes, or pin electrode-type probes with a short spacing between electrodes. Additionally, flush-type probes have a flat surface on which deposits can more easily develop to form a bridge.

4.3.2.2.1 The problem of deposit build-up is also dependent on the type of deposits that can induce pitting corrosion by setting up concentration cells underneath the deposits, and it is more frequently associated with

5

M - Single-user license only, copying and networking prohibited.

SP0499-2007

6

Mengfei

systems in which deposits tend to consist predominantly of FeS. If possible, to reduce fouling in these systems, the probe should not be located in the 6 oclock position. 4.3.2.2.2 Experience has shown that pitting corrosion, as well as variations in the oxygen concentration, may be indicated by noisy readings from electrochemical monitoring devices. Instruments and software written specifically for evaluation of noise that can be used for in-depth studies are available. A polarization curve or potentiodynamic scan can be run and evaluated for pitting potential, as indicated by hysteresis of the curve (i.e., the intercept of the anodic back scan with the cathodic curve can be used to predict pitting tendency). Particular care shall be taken in the application and interpretation of such methods beyond that required for the standard LPR approach.

4.3.2.3 The time taken for a probe to stabilize after installation varies, but typically, it is less than 48 hours. In most cases, the probes stabilize in a few hours. Stabilization occurs more quickly if a set procedure is followed for activating the electrodes (e.g., in a weak acid solution [such as 5% sulfuric acid] for 5 to 10 minutes). 4.3.2.4 Probe results reflect changes in the process or chemical treatments. When the response becomes sluggish or the readings approach zero or rise rapidly off-scale, probe maintenance shall be performed and new electrodes should be installed. 4.3.2.5 LPR probes are very susceptible to fouling by deposits such as FeS, sand, waxes, scales, and oil that can affect the accuracy of the readings. 4.3.2.6 In some cases, LPR probes will need maintenance or replacement after one to two months because of electrode shorting, deposit build-up, or sluggish or erratic behavior. In other clean systems, probes can function correctly for much longer periods. Probes should be regularly inspected until a suitable life pattern can be established for the particular service conditions. 4.3.2.7 Because LPR probes can respond rapidly to changes in the system, single LPR readings taken at infrequent intervals should not be relied upon. Spot readings offer little or no benefit over ER probe readings (see Paragraph 4.3.3.1). Results taken more frequently are more beneficial in establishing the corrosion status of a system. The LPR reading is not the actual corrosion rate if localized corrosion takes place or if the incorrect Stern-Geary constant is used. The LPR probe

Guo - Invoice INV-293193-TFRMKS, downloaded on 1/7/2010 1:05:33

should be calibrated by measuring the Tafel constants to get the correct Stern-Geary constant. 4.3.2.8 Continuous automatic monitoring of LPR probes has particular advantages. Small-amplitude current voltammetry gives an instantaneous corrosion rate record that can be plotted and variations in corrosion rate can be seen clearly. Care should be taken to select appropriate voltage settings and scan rates for the most reliable results.

4.3.3 ER Probes

4.3.3.1 ER probes offer an alternative method of monitoring. These probes monitor the increase in resistance of a metal loop as it corrodes, and the data can be plotted for corrosion trends. ER probes are often adopted as a crosscheck for LPR probes. ER probes are often used because of the difficulties in maintenance necessary for LPR probes (ER probes require only minimal maintenance). ER probes are effective in seawater injection systems in which fouling of electrodes may render the LPR probe ineffective very quickly, making the LPR technique impractical to use in some systems. 4.3.3.2 The ER technique has one major shortcomingif the system being monitored is sour, the formation of FeS and/or other conductive scales can increase the effective cross section of the metal loop and render the measurement inaccurate. Another potential problem with the use of ER probes is the reading stability if temperature fluctuations are apparent in the system. Accurate readings can only be obtained if the sensing element is at the same temperature as the reference element, which is sometimes located at the opposite end of the probe body. Experience has shown that in a liquid phase, it takes five minutes for probes to have stabilized sufficiently to allow credible data to be accumulated. Such temperature effects tend to be of less concern in water injection systems. 4.3.3.3 A number of element shapes for ER probes are available, the most commonly preferred one being the tubular element. This element provides a better insight into the average metal loss and it is also used in areas of severe corrosion, in which thicker elements are needed to give a reasonable probe life. Wire element probes are also used, which, because of the rapid reduction in cross-sectional area, quickly detect the onset or progress of pitting corrosion. 4.3.3.4 Although the amount of data obtained from an ER probe is restricted when compared to data obtained from LPR probes, the correct

NACE International


SP0499-2007

Meng

element selection offers long probe life with minimum maintenance, thereby allowing cost-effective monitoring.

4.3.4 Galvanic Probes

4.3.4.1 Galvanic probes are often selected as a support probe technique. They do not allow the measurement of corrosion directly, but they can indicate the presence of an oxidizing species. Galvanic probes have been shown to be very responsive to dissolved oxygen in a system and, in this respect, are a valuable tool to detect oxygen entry, although they do not measure oxygen content. These probes are especially useful when commissioning, optimizing, or troubleshooting seawater injection systems as well as monitoring high-pressure systems. 4.3.4.2 In galvanic probes, two replaceable pin electrodes, one of which is steel and the other brass, are generally used, and these are inserted directly into the seawater stream. Other metallic couples can be used for specific galvanic corrosion studies. 4.3.4.3 Galvanic probes should be used downstream from deaerator tower/residence tower locations to help control tower operation and oxygen scavenger injection. In these locations, galvanic probes have been used successfully as a means to detect the presence of residual Cl and changes in Cl content when the oxygen levels are under strict control. 4.3.4.4 Experience has shown that electrode fouling can result in a sluggish response, from either accumulation of corrosion product or process fouling. Consequently, galvanic probe electrodes shall be cleaned regularly to obtain good performance. Process fouling can be minimized by positioning probes downstream from filters.

4.4 Seawater Chemistry Measurements

4.4.1 Water chemistry measurements should be used to complement online corrosion rate monitoring. The reasons for high corrosion rate excursions may sometimes be associated with inadequate removal of oxygen, poor biological control, plant malfunctions, oxygen ingress, and excessive addition of chemicals used to control corrosion, scale, or microorganisms. For example, bisulfite or excess Cl increases corrosiveness. Changes in injection water composition caused by switching sources from a reservoir to a supply well, or disposal of a tank of produced water along with the regular injection water, can change the water chemistry.

NACE International

fei Guo - Invoice INV-293193-TFRMKS, downloaded on 1/7/2010 1:05:33 A

4.4.2 Dissolved Oxygen

4.4.2.1 Oxygen content of the injection water should be routinely monitored. For example, oxygen measurement can supplement corrosion-monitoring devices located downstream from water injection pumps, where oxygen ingress may occur as a result of faulty pump seals.

4.4.2.1.1 The concentration of unreacted oxygen scavenger can be determined by means of sulfite residual tests. However, the results obtained using the standard procedure, based on reaction with iodine, are likely to be affected by sulfides if they are present. 4.4.2.1.2 The addition of oxygen scavenger is usually monitored by checking the dissolved oxygen concentration of the seawater at suitable locations downstream from the oxygen scavenger injection point, by corrosion rate measurements, or by a combination of these.

4.4.2.2 Monitoring dissolved oxygen in the seawater can be carried out by an electrochemical (polarographic) technique, a chemical method, or by colorimetric ampoules.

4.4.2.2.1 The polarographic technique is the most sensitive and the only one currently available that allows concentrations of oxygen as low as 1 ppb to be continuously recorded on a chart. The technique uses a sensing element that consists of a gold cathode and silver anode immersed in an electrolyte.

4.4.2.2.1.1 The seawater sample is allowed to pass against a thin membrane (usually polytetrafluorethylene [PTFE]), through which the oxygen passes to react electrochemically in the sensing element, thereby allowing a direct measurement of dissolved oxygen present. The sensing elements should be calibrated routinely by properly trained technicians. 4.4.2.2.1.2 The silver anode can be poisoned by sulfite and sulfide ions. However, H2S-insensitive versions of these instruments are available. If poisoning occurs, the sensing element should be restored to full sensitivity by following the manufacturers electrode-cleaning procedure. 4.4.2.2.1.3 The sensing element should be placed in a flowthrough or sidestream arrangement connected to a sampling

7

M - Single-user license only, copying and networking prohibited.

SP0499-2007

Mengf

point. The length of tubing connecting the sampling point to the flowthrough sensing element should be as short as possible. Sample flow rates are slow (approximately 50 mL/min), and residence time of the water in the sample line should be minimized to prevent inaccurate measurement because of consumption of oxygen in the sample line through corrosion processes or further reaction with oxygen scavenger added. Leakage in any joints upstream from the sensing element shall be avoided. 4.4.2.2.2 Chemical techniques have been found to give less consistent results than the polarographic method, although these techniques are still widely used in industrial water treatment. These techniques, however, are time-consuming. 4.4.2.2.3 Ampoules based on color chemistry are commonly used for oilfield waterflood monitoring and are much easier to use than a conventional titration procedure. However, they can suffer interference either from poor water clarity or by reaction with the oxidizing agents (e.g., Cl) or reducing agents (e.g., sulfites, bisulfites, and sulfides).

4.4.3 Bacteria and Biocide

4.4.3.1 In many seawater injection systems, no monitoring is carried out to verify that aerobic bacteria are being controlled; it is assumed that a certain Cl residual ensures that aerobic bacteria are under control.

4.4.3.1.1 Oxidizing biocides such as Cl can be analyzed by several techniques, some of which are affected by the presence of other oxidizing or reducing agents. In most cases, the control of Cl injection is based on the assumption that the Cl demand of the water is fairly constant, and that the rate of Cl injection and its concentration as injected are also fairly constant. Therefore, online monitoring of Cl residual is not normally considered necessary, and control can be based on spot checks using various comparator methods. 4.4.3.1.2 Online analyzers for Cl and other oxidizing biocides are available; these generally use colorimetric technology. 4.4.3.1.3 Monitoring of residual Cl content has often been used to give an indication of the effectiveness of chlorination. The perceived logic behind such monitoring is that

8

ei Guo - Invoice INV-293193-TFRMKS, downloaded on 1/7/2010 1:05:3

if an excess of Cl is detected, the required amount of Cl must have been used in effectively reducing biological activity. This is only indirect evidence, and must be confirmed by monitoring biological activity also.

4.4.3.2 Monitoring of the seawater injection system for corrosion associated with anaerobic bacteria and for determining effectiveness of biocide treatment should be considered.

4.4.3.2.1 NACE Standard TM0194

1 provides

detailed procedures for field monitoring of bacterial growth in oil and gas systems. 4.4.3.2.2 Other monitoring techniques that can provide relevant information include corrosion coupons, biofilm probes, and chemical analysis for dissolved sulfides. All of these methods have been used, but industry preferences vary. 4.4.3.2.3 A current trend is to place more emphasis on biofilm probes, which are designed to sample sessile bacteria. These are bacteria that grow on the metal surface under any other deposits and that may be least exposed to bactericide treatment. 4.4.3.2.4 Chemical analysis to determine concentrations of the biocide may be desirable. Monitoring of both continuous and slug or batch treatment should be included to optimize biocide addition.

4.4.4 Seawater pH

4.4.4.1 Seawater pH readings should be taken routinely on an injection system incorporating produced gas stripping. Ideally, continuous-reading probes contained within a sidestream arrangement should be used. The alternative method of grab sampling may be used, especially as a crosscheck to a continuous-reading probe. 4.4.4.2 High-pressure pH probes that can be inserted directly into a pressurized system have been developed. There has been little performance feedback to date on which to base recommendations regarding the use of these probes.

4.5 Solids

4.5.1 Physical tests using membrane filter tests and particle counters, such as suspended solids content and particle size, counts, and distribution, should be used when corrosion products might have an adverse effect on injection water quality (see NACE Standard TM0173

2 for guidance).

NACE International


SP0499-2007

NACE International

_________________________________________________________________________

Mengfei Guo - Invoice INV-29319

Section 5: Materials Selection for Seawater Injection Systems

5.1 ASM(3)

Metals Handbook3 contains useful guidance on

corrosion mechanisms and mitigation measures in water injection systems, including materials selection. 5.2 For secondary oil recovery, seawater may be pumped back down into the well. The raw seawater should be treated at the intake with Cl or hypochlorite and pumped up with lift pumps. The early pumps were made from austenitic cast iron with duplex SS shafts. Some of the austenitic cast-iron impellers suffered corrosion, but the shafts were not attacked. The impellers as well as the shaft are now typically made from duplex SS.

4

5.3 The seawater should be filtered and treated before injection to avoid souring the field. It also should be deaerated to prevent corrosion. Stainless steels are resistant to pitting and crevice corrosion in deaerated seawater, even if hot. After treatment and deaeration, CS pipe may be used, but SS should be used where velocities are high (e.g., in pumps, valves, and reducers). At the high pressures involved, duplex SSs are often used for larger components because their higher strength can reduce weight. Seawater injection pumps have typically been made from UNS

(4) S41000 (410 SS), UNS S31600 (316

SS), and UNS S31800 (318 SS), which have generally been satisfactory. However, there has been a gradual trend toward using proprietary duplex SSs, such as UNS S32550 (alloy 255) and UNS S32760 (ASTM

(5) A 2405 or A 9886),

for injection duty to avoid corrosion and to reduce weight.7

3-TFRMKS, downloaded on 1/7/2010 1:05:

5.4 If sweet seawater (i.e., not containing H2S) is deaerated to less than 20 ppb oxygen, velocities are low, and SRB are controlled, CS may be used for injection. If these conditions cannot be met, more corrosion-resistant materials, such as those used in sour seawater service, should be used.

8

5.5 Injection water may be deaerated seawater, raw untreated seawater, or produced water. NORSOK

(6)

evaluation of corrosiveness for deaerated injection seawater is, for conventional deaeration, based on a maximum operating temperature of 30C (86F) and the following oxygen equivalent (oxygen equivalent = ppb oxygen + 0.3 [ppb free Cl]) levels:

50 ppb for 90% of operation time; and

200 ppb for 10% of operation time, noncontinuous. 5.6 If the specified oxygen equivalent is above 50 ppb or the temperature is greater than 30C (86F) for normal operation, material selection shall be subject to special evaluation. 5.7 The Norsk Sokkels Konkuranseposisjon (NORSOK) recommendations for tubing and liner materials are shown in Table 1.

9

Table 1: NORSOK Recommendations for Injection System Materials

Injection water Tubing and liner Completion equipment (When different from tubing/liner)

Deaerated seawater Low-alloy steel UNS N09925 (alloy 925), UNS N07718 (alloy 718), 22Cr or 25Cr duplex SS

Raw seawater Low-alloy steel with glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) or other liner; Unlined low-alloy steel for short design life; Titanium (with design limitations)

Titanium (with design limitations)

Produced and aquifer water Low-alloy steel; Low-alloy steel with GRP or other liner; 13Cr (provided oxygen < 10 ppb); 22Cr duplex SS, UNS N07718, UNS N09925 (provided oxygen < 20 ppb).

13Cr (with limits as for tubing for this service)

____________________________ (3)

ASM International (ASM), 9639 Kinsman Road, Materials Park, OH 44073-0002. (4)

Metals and Alloys in the Unified Numbering System (latest revision), a joint publication of ASTM International (ASTM) and SAE International (SAE), 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. (5)

ASTM International (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. (6)

NORSOK standards are developed by the Norwegian petroleum industry. They are administered and published by Standards Norway, Strandveien 18, PO Box 242, N-1326 Lysaker, Norway.

9


SP0499-2007

Me

5.8 For CS submarine injection flow lines, the minimum corrosion allowance shall be 3.0 mm (0.12 in). In injection water systems in which alternating deaerated seawater, produced water, aquifer water, and/or gas could flow through the systems, the material selection must allow for this. All components that may contact injection water or back-flowing fluids must be resistant to the well-treating chemicals and well-stimulating chemicals. For CS piping, the maximum flow velocity shall be 6 m/s (20 ft/s).

9

5.9 The most common injection water for onshore oil and gas production is produced water. This often contains high concentrations of ions and dissolved gases (e.g., chlorides, bicarbonates, sulfates, CO2, and H2S). Many materials have been used for injection piping handling produced water, with differing degrees of success. Solid GRP piping

10

____________________________________

____________________________________

ngfei Guo - Invoice INV-293193-TFRMKS, downloaded on 1/7/2010 1:05:

with threaded connections has been used successfully in this type of application. UNS S31600 (316 SS), UNS S31803 (alloy 2205), and internally coated CS have been used for wellhead tie-ins, headers, meter runs, waterway crossings, or other high-traffic areas. CS with an internal cement lining (dense ASTM C 150

10 Type III pozzolana

cement) has an expected life of 20 years, with some repair work likely at joints. CS with an internal high-density polyethylene (HDPE) lining is expected to last 25 years. CS with shop-applied coating (e.g., modified baked phenolic) used together with chemical treatment can be expected to last approximately 7 years. Bare CS, even with inhibitor and/or biocide treated water, has a life expectancy of approximately 5 years (typically 2 to 7 years) before repairs are needed.

11

_____________________________________

References

1. NACE Standard TM0194 (latest revision), Field Monitoring of Bacterial Growth in Oil and Gas Systems (Houston, TX: NACE). 2. NACE Standard TM0173 (latest revision), Methods for Determining Quality of Subsurface Injection Water Using Membrane Filters (Houston, TX: NACE). 3. ASM Metals Handbook, Corrosion: Environments and Industries, Volume 13C (Materials Park, Ohio: ASM International, 2006), pp. 922-962. 4. G. Payne, Material Failures in North Sea Water Injection Systems, CORROSION/93, paper no. 66 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1993), pp. 1-8. 5. ASTM A 240/A 240M (latest revision), Standard Specification for Chromium and Chromium-Nickel Stainless Steel Plate, Sheet, and Strip for Pressure Vessels and for General Applications (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM). 6. ASTM A 988/A 988M (latest revision), Standard Specification for Hot Isostatically-Pressed Stainless Steel

_

33

Flanges, Fittings, Valves, and Parts for High Temperature Service (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM). 7. G.L. Swales, B. Todd, Nickel-Containing Alloy Piping for Offshore Oil and Gas Production, presented at the 28th Annual Conference of Metallurgists of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum

(7) Meeting of

Sea and Science, held August 20-24, 1989 (Montreal, QC: CIM, 1989). 8. C.C. Patton, Corrosion Control of Water Injection Systems, MP 32, 8 (1993): pp. 46-49. 9. NORSOK Standard M-001 (latest revision), Materials Selection (Lysaker, Norway: NORSOK). 10. ASTM C 150 (latest revision), Standard Specification for Portland Cement (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM). 11. R.J. Franco, Materials Selection for Produced Water Injection Piping, MP 34, 1 (1995): pp. 47-50.

____________________________________

Bibliography
Al-Hashem, A., J. Carew, and M. Salman. Control Of
Microbially Influenced Corrosion in an Effluent Water Injection System in West Kuwait. CORROSION/98, paper no. 293. Houston, TX: 1998.

Al-Hashem, A., M. Salman, and J. Carew. Screening and Evaluation of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion (MIC) In Seawater and Effluent Water Injection Systems in Kuwait. CORROSION/99, paper no. 182. Houston, TX: NACE, 1999.

____________________________ (7) Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum (CIM), Suite 855, 3400 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W, Montreal, QC, H3Z 3B8.

NACE International


SP0499-2007

M

Al-Hashem, A., M. Salman, and K. Al-Muhanna. Scale Inhibitor Evaluation for an Effluent Injection System in West Kuwait. CORROSION/2000, paper no. 330. Houston, TX: 2000.

Al-Hashem, A., M. Salman, K. Al-Muhatma, and W. A1-

Bazzaz. The Effect of Seasonal Changes on the Selection of Biocide Inhibitors for Arabian Gulf Seawater for Water Injection Purposes. CORROSION/97, paper no. 395. Houston, TX: NACE, 1997, pp. 1-13.

Alvis, R.L. Comparison of Waterflood Corrosion Detection

and Monitoring Devices. Materials Protection 8, 2 (1969): pp. 39-42.

Andersen, T.R., and T. Sontvedt. The Influence of

Chlorine, Oxygen, and Flow on Corrosion in Seawater Injection Systems. In Proc. UK Corrosion Symposium. Vol. 2. 1991.

Annand, R.R. Oil Field Experience with Polarization

Corrosion Rate Measurements. NACE 23rd Annual Conference, paper no. 41. Houston, TX: NACE, 1967. pp. 50-51.

Anonymous. Improving Water Quality in a Produced Water

Injection System. Supplement to Materials Performance 40, 2 (2001).

Anonymous. Corrosion Inhibitor for Water Injection.

Materials Performance 43, 1 (2004): pp. 52-53. Banks, C.D. East Carnduff Unit Corrosion Problems.

Canadian Petroleum 7 (July 1966): pp. 20-22, 24-25. Bhavsar, R.B., and J.A. Galbraith. Economical Solutions to

Corrosion in North Sea Water Injector Well Completion Equipment. CORROSION/93, paper no. 59. Houston, TX: NACE, 1993, pp. 1-16.

Brewster, J. Waterflood Stations Help to Combat

Corrosion. Drill Bit 29, 1 (1980): pp. 25-26. Britton, C.F. Corrosion and Off-Shore Operations. Anti-

Corrosion 24, 4 (1977): pp. 14-15. Byars, H.G., and B.R. Gallop. Injection Water + Oxygen =

Corrosion and/or Well Plugging Solids. Materials Performance 13, 12 (December 1974): pp. 31-36.

Carew, J., A. Al-Hashem, and A. Al-Sayegh. Flow Effects

on the Corrosion Inhibition of Seawater Injection System. Proc. Corrosion & Prevention, held November 23-25, 1988. Blackburn, Victoria: Australasian Corrosion Association.

(8)

NACE International

engfei Guo - Invoice INV-293193-TFRMKS, downloaded on 1/7/2010 1:05:33

Characklis, W.G., and Marshall, K.C. (ed.), Biofilms. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY: 1990.

Chen, E.Y., and R.B. Chen. Monitoring Microbial

Corrosion in Large Oilfield Water Systems. Proceedings of the 3rd SPE

(9) of AIME

(10) Middle East Oil Show

Conference, held 1983. Richardson, TX: SPE, 1983, pp.

557-563. Chitwood, G.B. Experience with Corrosion of Downhole

Completion Equipment in Water Injection Service. CORROSION/93, paper no. 57. Houston, TX: NACE, 1993, pp. 1-8.

Cole, E.L. Waste Injection in Oilfield Operations. World

Oil 223, 5 (2002): pp. 84-85. Crawford, P.W. Catalyzed Sodium Sulfite for Oxygen

Removal From Injection Water. Prod Mon 30, 1 (1966):

pp. 12-13. Cusack, R., D.R. Brown, J.W. Costerton, and D.M.

Clementz. Field and Laboratory Studies of Microbial/Fines Plugging of Water Injection Wells: Mechanism, Diagnosis, and Removal. J. Petrol. Sci. 1, 1 (1987).

De Gonzalez, C.B., A. Viloria, I. Araujo, and A. Medina.

Microbiology of Injection Waters for Secondary Recovery. Int Biodet. Biodeg. 37, 1-2 (1996): p. 124.

Denpo, K., and H. Ogawa. Corrosion Behavior of Pipe and

Tube Materials in Injection Systems. CORROSION/93, paper no. 60. Houston, TX: NACE, 1993.

Dewar, E.J. Control of Microbiologically Induced Corrosion

and Accumulation of Solids in a Seawater Flood System. Materials Performance 25, 7 (July 1986): p. 39.

Dexter, R. Electrochemical Hydrogen Patch Probe

Correlated to Corrosion Rate in a Slightly Sour Waterflood. 2nd ASTM Water for Subsurface Injection Symposium, held Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Johnson, J.L., ed. Water for Subsurface Injection. ASTM

STP 735. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 1981, pp. 15-22.

Donham, J.E. Offshore Water Injection System: Problems

and Solutions Materials Performance 29, 9 (1991): pp. 53-57.

____________________________ (8)

Australasian Corrosion Association (ACA), Suite 1, 458 Middleborough Road, Blackburn Victoria 3130, Australia. (9)

Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), PO Box 833836., Richardson, TX 75083-3836. (10) The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers (AIME), PO Box 27072, Littleton, CO 80127-0013.

11


SP0499-2007

M

Donham, J.E. Offshore Water Injection System: Problems and Solutions. 23rd Annual Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), held Houston, Texas, May 6-9, 1991. OTC Publication Number OTC 6782. Dallas, TX: SPE, 1991.

Drugli, J.M., and T.G. Rogne. Effect of Oxygen and

Chlorine Concentration on the Corrosion Rate of Carbon Steel Welds in Injection Water. CORROSION/93, paper no. 65. Houston, TX: NACE, 1993.

Endean, H.J. Designing for Handling Corrosive Waters.

Petroleum Engineer 50, 12 (1978): pp. 82-98. Endean, H.J. Materials and Installation Requirements for

Handling Corrosive Waters. Proceedings of 16th Annual Southwest Petroleum Short Course Meeting, held April 1969. Washington, DC: API, 1969, pp. 211-217.

Farquhar, G.B. A Review and Update of the Role of

Volatile Fatty Acids (VFAs) in Seawater Injection Systems. CORROSION/98, paper no. 5. Houston, TX: NACE, 1998.

Farquhar, G.B. Corrosion and Scale Problems Associated

with Secondary Recovery Operations in the Illinois Basin. API

(11) Production Division Eastern District Spring

Meeting Postprint No. 826-41-L. Washington, DC: API. Ferris, F.G., B.J. Bramhill, T.R. Jack, and B.M. Braun.

Monitoring of Biocide Efficacy at a Field Test Facility in an Oil Field Water Injection System. CORROSION/90, paper no. 130. Houston, TX: NACE, 1990.

Fischer, K.P., M.M. Salama, and J. Murali. Optimal

Selection of Materials for Seawater Injection Systems Testing in Deoxygenated Seawater. CORROSION/96, paper no. 593. Houston, TX: NACE, 1996.

Fort, W.C., E.S. Benn, R.C. Strong, and M. Vegesi.

Process Design of Injection Systems CORROSION/96, paper no. 587. Houston, TX: NACE, 1996.

Franco, R.J. Material Selection for Produced Water

Injection Piping. CORROSION/93, paper no. 63. Houston, TX: NACE, 1993.

Gates, G.L., and C.F. Parent. Water Quality Control

Presents Challenge in Giant Wilmington Field. Oil and Gas Journal 74, 33 (1976): pp. 115-126.

Geddes, M.C., and M.C. Kearns. Continuous Monitoring of the Duncan Field Water Injection System. UK CORROSION/85, sponsored by ICorr and NACE. Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom: ICorr, 1985.

12


Georgie, W.J., P.I. Nice, and S. Maxwell. Selection, Optimization and Monitoring of Biocide Efficacy in the Statfjord Water Injection System UK Corrosion 1991, paper no. 16. Leighton Buzzard, UK: ICorr, 1991.

Hamner, N.E. Corrosion Control Can Mean Waterflood Profit or Loss. Kansas-Oklahoma Oil Reporter 8, 3 (June 1965): pp. 18-20.

Harrell, J.B. Corrosion Rate Monitoring in Gas and Oil

Production. ASTM STP 641. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 1977, pp. 54-56.

Herbert, B.N., and F.D.J. Stott. The Effects of Pressure

and Temperature on Bacteria in Oilfield Water Injection Systems Microbial Corrosion. Microbial Corrosion. London, England: The Metals Society, 1983, pp. 7-17.

Hilliard, H.M., T. Jordan, and D. Ronat. Corrosion

Monitoring in Enhanced Oil Recovery Systems. Materials Performance 23, 5 (1984): pp. 43-45.

Horner, R.A., D. Harrop, and J.L. Bown. The Forties Water

Injection SystemA Review of Corrosion Control. UK CORROSION/84, sponsored by ICorr and NACE. Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom: ICorr, 1984.

Juniel, K.A. Practical Application of Produced Water

Treating Technology For Land-Based Injection Operations. Houston, Natco Group, 2003.

Kane, R.D., and P. Surinach. Use of Portable Monitoring

Units to Assess Microbial Activity, Corrosion, And Souring in Water Handling and Injection Systems. Corrosionsource/2000, paper no. 0107. Houston, TX: InterCorr International, 2000.

Kipps, H.J. Performance of Alloys in a Large-Scale Sea

Waterflood. 9th Annual SPE of AIME Offshore Technology Conference, Preprint No. OTC-3019. Richardson, TX: SPE, 1977, pp. 413-417.

Lewis, J.R., and A.D. Mercer, eds. Corrosion and Marine

Growth on Offshore Structures. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1984, pp. 69-80.

Maxwell, S., and P.I. Nice, Bacterial Monitoring of the

Three Statfjord Field Water Injection Systems. UK Corrosion 1988. Leighton Buzzard, U.K.: ICorr, 1988, pp. 108-124.

Maxwell, S. Microbially Influenced Corrosion (MIC)

Resulting in Grooves in Subsea Water Injection Flowlines. Proceedings of the CORROSION/2002 Research Topical Symposium. Houston, TX: NACE, 2002, pp. 123-132.
_______________________________ (11)
American Petroleum Institute (API), 1220 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20005-4070.

NACE International


SP0499-2007

Me

Maxwell, S. Implications of Re-Injection of Produced Water

on Microbially Influenced Corrosion (MIC) in Offshore Water Injection Systems. CORROSION/2005, paper no. 549. Houston, TX: NACE, 2005.

Paulus, W. (ed.). Directory of Microbiocides for the

Protection of Materials. Kluwer Academic Pub. Springer, The Netherlands, 2005.

McKinley, V.L., J.W. Costerton, and D.C. White. Microbial

Biomass, Activity and Community Structure of Water and Particulates Retrieved by Backflow from a Waterflood Injection Well. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 54, 6 (1988): pp. 1383-1393.

Melve, B, P. Nice, and M. Posson. Composite-Lined

Tubing for Water Injection in the Tough Environment of the North Sea. Offshore 64, 5 (2004): pp. 54-58.

Moore, B.H. Diagnosis of Bacterial Sulfide Problems in

Secondary Recovery and Salt Water Disposal Water Injection Systems. Producers Monthly 22, 4 (1958): pp. 18-21.

Myhr, S., B.L. Lillebo, E. Sunde, J. Beeder, and T. Torsvik.

Inhibition of Microbial H2S Production in an Oil Reservoir Model Column by Nitrate Injection. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 58, 3 (2002): pp. 400-408.

NACE Publication 31205 (latest revision) Selection,

Application, and Evaluation of Biocides in the Oil and Gas Industry. Houston, TX: NACE.

Nice, P.I. and O. Strandmyr. Materials and Corrosion

Control Experience Within the Statfjord Field Seawater Injection Systems. CORROSION/93, paper no. 64. Houston, TX: NACE, 1993.

Nice, P.I., W.J. Georgie, and A.N. Rothwell. Use of

Alternating Current Impedance Technique for Optimizing H2S Scavenger Injection in Well Flowlines. Materials Performance 30, 7 (1991): pp. 58-62.

Noble, J.H. Economic Corrosion Control of a Large

Waterflood. Baroid News Bulletin 20, 2 (1968): pp. 10-

13. Nott, F. M. Microbiological and Chemical Studies on the

Rama Field Seawater Injection and Production Systems. Micran Report #C/87/02/050, 1987.

Payne, G. Material Failures in North Sea Water Injection Systems. CORROSION/93, paper no. 66. Houston, TX: NACE, 1993.

NACE International

ngfei Guo - Invoice INV-293193-TFRMKS, downloaded on 1/7/2010 1:05:33

Patton, C.C., Applied Water Technology. Campbell Petroleum Series. Norman, OK: 1986. Prues, W., E.S. Lee, and C.L. Kissell. Chemical Mitigation of Corrosion by Chlorine Dioxide in Oilfield Waterfloods. Materials Performance 24, 5 (1985): pp. 45-50. Rizk, T.Y., J.F.D. Stott, R.D. Eden, R.A. Davis, J.E.

McElhiney, C. Di Iorio, and J.A. Hardy. The Effect of Desulphated Seawater Injection on Microbiological Hydrogen Sulphide Generation and Implication for Corrosion Control. CORROSION/98, paper no. 287. Houston, TX: NACE, 1998.

Robinson, K. On-Site Testing of Oil Field Waters. Society

of Petroleum Engineers Symposium, held China, 1986.

SPE Publication 141281. Richardson, TX: SPE, 1986. Robinson, K. Trouble Shooting Mature Waterfloods.

Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry Conference, held

Denver, CO, June 1-3, 1983. SPE Publication 11903. Richardson, TX: SPE, 1983.

Romero, J.M., M. Amaya, and J.A Hernandez. MIC

Control in Seawater Pipelines of an Offshore Injection System. Materials Performance 43, 2 (2004): pp. 38-40.

Romero, J.M., E. Velzquez, G. Villalobos, M. Amaya, and

S. Le Borgne. Genetic Monitoring of Bacterial Populations in a Seawater Injection System, Identification of Biocide Resistant Bacteria and Study of Their Corrosive Effect. CORROSION/2005, paper no. 483. Houston, TX: NACE, 2005.

Sacco, F.J. The Use of Chlorine Dioxide in a Late Life

Waterflood. American Chemical Society Advances in Oilfield Chemistry and Chemical Symposium, held St.

Louis, MO. American Chemical Society(12)

Petroleum Chemical Division Preprints 29, 2 (1984): pp. 605-606.

Salama, M.M. Erosion Velocity Limits for Water Injection

Systems. Materials Performance 32, 7 (1993): pp. 44-49.

Salama, M.M. Erosional Velocity Limits for Water Injection

Systems. CORROSION/93, paper no. 62. Houston, TX: NACE, 1993.

Salama, M.M. Saltwater Injection Systems Can Tolerate

Higher Velocities. Oil and Gas Journal 91, 28 (July 1993): pp. 102-103.

____________________________ (12)

American Chemical Society (ACS), 1155 Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036. (13)

European Federation of Corrosion (EFC), 1 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DB, U.K.

13


SP0499-2007

M

Salman, M., A. Al-Hashem, and J. Carew. Control of

Scaling Tendencies in an Effluent Water Injection Plant in West Kuwait Oil Fields: Laboratory Study. SPE 13th Middle East Oil Show & Conference, paper no. 81573. Richardson, TX: SPE, 2003.

Sanders, P.F., and D.L. Robinson. Corrosion Control

Using Continuous Residual Chlorine in Water Injection Systems EFC # 8, 2nd Microbial Corrosion Conference, held 1991. London, England: EFC

(13), 1991, pp. 198-205.

Sharma, M.M. Injection Water Management Opportunities

and Challenges. University of Texas, Austin. http://www.pge.utexas.edu/pdf/spedislect.pdf.

Silverman, S.A., W. Butler, T. Ashby, and K. Snider. Novel

Downhole Capillary Injection System Solves Difficult Chemical Treatment Problem. Materials Performance 36, 9 (1997): pp. 54-56.

Skar, K. Deoxygenation Process Treats Seawater for

Injection. World Oil 223, 4 (2002). Sorbie, K.S., and E.J. Mackay. Mixing of Injected, Connate

and Aquifer Brines in Waterflooding and its Relevance to Oilfield Scaling. Journal of Petroleum Science & Engineering 27 (2000): pp.85-106.

14


Stott, J.F.D., and B.N. Herbert. The Effect of Pressure and Temperature on Sulphate-Reducing Bacteria and the Action of Biocides in Oilfield Water Injection Systems. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 60 (1986): pp.57-66.

Sunde, E., T. Lillebo, and T. Thorstenson H2S Inhibition By

Nitrate Injection on the Gullfaks Field. CORROSION/2004, paper no. 760. Houston: TX, NACE, 2004.

Videla, H.A., M.M.S. Freitas, M.R. Araujo, and R.A. Silva.

Corrosion and Biofouling Studies in Brazilian Offshore Seawater Injection Systems. CORROSION/89, paper no. 191. Houston, TX: NACE, 1989.

Videla, H.A., P.S. Guiamet, O.R. Pardini, E. Echarte, D.

Trujillo, and M.M.S. Freitas. Monitoring Biofilms and Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion (MIC) in an Oilfield Water Injection System. CORROSION/91, paper no. 103. Houston, TX: NACE, 1991.

Walker, C.K., and G.C. Maddux. Corrosion-Monitoring

Techniques and Applications. Materials Performance 28, 5 (1989): pp. 64-70.

Wolfe, D.H., and J.J. Baron. Flexible Pipe Combats

Corrosion Threat at Sour Brine Injection Site. Oil and Gas Journal 95, 6 (1995).

NACE International

http://www.pge.utexas.edu/pdf/spedislect.pdfNACE SP0499-2007ForewordContentsSection 1: GeneralSection 2: The Need for Corrosion ControlSection 3: Corrosion Control in Seawater Injection SystemsSection 4: Monitoring of Seawater Injection SystemsSection 5: Materials Selection for Seawater Injection SystemsReferencesBibliographyFIGURE 1Table 1

Documents

Corrosion Control and Monitoring in Seawater Injection Systems