Chapter 6:

Corrosion and Erosion

Corrosion
Corrosion is defined as destruction of a metal by chemical or electrochemical reaction with its environment. It is reported that 80% of failures in production and pipeline operations are caused by corrosion.2 Corrosion may be apparent by metal loss, strength loss by cracking and solids problems
caused by formation of corrosion by-products. One of the first decisions in well completion design is
the selection of the proper casing and tubing. Corrosion will not alter calculation of the tensile, burst
and collapse, but it may dictate the selection of the grade of material necessary to satisfy these
requirements. Corrosion is common in almost all hydrocarbon-producing environments and costs hundreds of millions of dollars throughout the industry every year.3 In addition, the economic problems are
intensified through loss of revenues due to down time and deferred p r o d ~ c t i o n . ~
For corrosion to occur, there must be a circuit produced through which electrical current can flow. The
circuit is called the corrosion cell and the electrical current produced by the process, although very
small, can do enormous damage to metal systems.
The basic cause of corrosion is instability of metal in its refined form. Because of the free energy relationship, the metals tend to revert to their natural state through the process of corrosion. Pure metals
rarely exist in the natural world. To obtain a pure metal, a salt of the metal (the ore) is refined (energy
added). This energy input is stored in the metal and serves as a source of potential (voltage) for the
corrosion circuit. Since different metals require varying amounts of energy to refine, there are variations in the amount of voltage available for the circuit. The following table from Patton5 is included to
show the tendencies of metal to corrode. The half-cell potentials, which were reported by Peabody,6
were measured with a hydrogen reference electrode in a solution of the metal salt.

The ranking of metals from most easily corroded to least corroded is a galvanic series. For metals
common in the oil industry, the ranking is as follows.2
magnesium (and magnesium alloys)
zinc (and galvanized coatings)
aluminum (soft alloys)
cadmium (and cadmium coatings)
aluminum (hard alloys)
steel, cast iron
stainless steel (300 AISI, active)
lead
tin

6-1

naval brass, magnesium bronze, yellow brass

admiralty brass, aluminum bronze, red brass
cooper, silicone bronze
lnconel
Monel
stainless steel (300 AISI, passage)
Hastelloy B and C-276 (and other high nickel alloys, super alloys)
Galvanic corrosion occurs when the dissimilar metals are coupled in an electrolyte. The attack is from
current flow within the simple battery formed by the metals and the water. Metals that are widely separated in the previous galvanic series will show the highest level of corrosion. Coatings on the metal
surface, such as iron carbonates, block the galvanic current and lessen c o r r o ~ i o n . ~
In any steel, the important sources of galvanic cell potential difference are:8

1. The various states of heat treatment of the steel, such as:

a. weld metal deposits,
b. the junction of weld and base metal,
c. tubing end heat treatment prior to upset (joint) manufacture
2. Cold Work and residual stress that result in anodes.
The Corrosion Circuit

The corrosion circuit requires an anode (the site of corrosion on the metal), a cathode, a metal connection between the anode and the cathode, and an electrolyte (liquid) surrounding the anode and the
cathode.
Chemical Reaction

In acid solutions (pH e 7),reduction of hydrogen ions to hydrogen gas can be the dominant reaction in
the absence of H2S gas. In neutral or basic soluiions (pH 17),reduction of oxygen is the dominate
reaction. When gases such as CO2 and H2S are present, the reactions are modified by the gases.
Presence of CO2in neutral solutions can cause direct reaction of bicarbonate or carbonate ion with
the steel. This can deposit a beneficial protective films such as iron carbonate. H2S on the metal surface stops the formation of hydrogen gas from hydrogen ions and permits a large percentage of the
cathodic hydrogen ions to enter the steeL7 This is the start of one of the hydrogen embrittlements;
cracking in hard steels or blistering in soft steels.

As the metal corrodes, it dissolves at the anode and enters the solution as ions. It is an oxidation reaction since the iron leaves in an
state. The electrons flow toward the cathode, where hydrogen gas
is evolved. The schematic of the corrosion cell is shown in Figure 6.1.5 The anode reactions are:

2 F e 4 2 F e +,+4e
2Fe +%2Fe

+3+2e

The cathodic reaction involves electrons received from the anodic reaction:

312 0, + 3 H, 0 + 6 e + 60 H-

6-2

1 F2e 03 H' O2 ~

1/2 02

2H+
k " 2
2e'

ANODE
-

20H'

2e'
CATHODE

ELECTROLYTE
METAL SURFACE

ELECTRON
FLOW
(Jones. 19881

Figure 6.1:

A representation of the corrosion cell.

The overall corrosion reaction is:

2Fe+3U20+3/2 0 2 + 2 f - e ( O H ) ,
This reaction is for corrosion produced in neutral, agitated salt water.5 The actual location of the
anode and cathode may vary with the inhomogeneities in the metal and attack may be localized or
may occur over a very wide area. The rate of reaction is dependent upon many factors, including the
salinity of the water, flow velocity, temperature, pH, metal alloy characteristics, and dissolved gases
such as oxygen, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.
The overall corrosion process results in weight loss at the anode caused by the loss of iron and hydrogen embrittlement of high strength and highly stressed steels by penetration of the atomic hydrogen.
The corrosion reaction is most severe where pits are formed. The intensity of the pitting is affected by
the manufacturing, handling and production factors. In these areas, abnormalities such as large
grains, poor heat treating, improper stress relief, mill marks, pipe wrench nicks, damage during running, and other factors contribute heavily to the location of electrochemical attack that causes pits.
Endean summarized the common sources of metal corrosion as:*

1. Hydrogen sulfide causes both pitting and general attack. The reaction product is a black, usu-

ally shiny mass and may be in the form of a hard scale or a finely divided solid dispersed in the
water.

2. Carbon dioxide attack is through pitting with brown or black reaction product. Pits produced in
CO2 attack are frequently in a line and resemble a large cavity. The remainder of the pipe may be

unaffected.
3. High concentration chloride brines with a pH of 6-7 produce shallow wide spread pitting attack
similar to acids but much less severe.

4. HCI mineral acid attack produces severe general pitting with frequent occurrence of deep channels and deep pits.

6-3

5. Sulfate reducing bacteria SRBs produce a localized corrosion by trapping their own low pH
waste product and protecting the corrosion from inhibitor contact. The location of the corrosion is
usually under the bacteria colony.
6. Erosion damage - high velocity contact by fluids, gases containing mists and droplets, or fluids

containing solids generates a smooth surface with frequent shallow channels, plateaus, and
sharply defined transition areas, especially around the area of highest fluid velocity and directly
across from perforation^.^
The amount of corrosion is often expressed as a mils (or thousandths of an inch) per year, MPY. This
means of expressing corrosion is only usable when the corrosion rate is an even attack on the surface
of the steel. Where pits occur, an MPY value is useless: generation of even a few deep pits can ruin a
piece of equipment without loosing but the smallest fraction of a percent of the total metal mass. Rate
of pit growth varies with the depth and size of the pit and the rate of penetration of the pit will actually
increase with depth of the pit.2 As the pit is growing, the very bottom of the pit is the anode. This area
becomes smaller with pit depth as the pit forms a V shape. The smaller bottom area looses metal at a
faster rate to satisfy the current flow of the corrosion circuit. This is the reason for pin hole leaks in an
otherwise solid piece of equipment.
Acid Gases
The special case of production of hydrogen sulfide gas, H2S, carbon dioxide gas, CO2, or a mixture of
the two is the area of acid gas technology.O The corrosion produces one or more types of Hydrogen
Embrittlement, HE, in the steel. Hydrogen embrittlement reduces the toughness of steel (a loss of ductility) and is most prevalent around existing defects (micro or macroscopic) in the steel. The steels
most susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement problems are those with a yield strength of 80,000 psi, or
greater (N-80 and higher alloys). In lower strength steels, hydrogen blistering is occasionally found.
The corrosion caused by acid gasses is influenced by the pH and by pressure, temperature, the corrosion resistance of the metal and the passive corrosion films formed on the surface of the metal.
Several forms of hydrogen embrittlements, HE, have been described including stress corrosion cracking and stress sulfide cracking.&

All forms of hydrogen embrittlement are brittle failures of a metal at a stress level below its yield
strength as a result of their exposure to atomic hydrogen. The atomic hydrogen is generated on
metal surfaces by corrosion r e a ~ t i o n . The
~ hydrogen is diffused into the metal and causes a reduction in the ductility of the metal. Sour gas increases the corrosion of HE by: (1) low pH of fluids that
contain H2S, (2) sulfide causes a greater percentage of the hydrogen created at the surface to enter
the metal, and (3) the anodic portion of the corrosion reaction tends to be localized, which helps
cracks initiate. The result of these actions is extremely rapid failure of some metals in sour fluids.
HE is generally associated with high strength steel and is common with H2S wells. The factors controlling HE are:*

1. Steel yield strength steel with yield strengths of 90,000 psi or lower (C-90, N-80, L-80, C-75,

etc.) are usually less susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement.

2. Hardness Maximum hardness should be a Rockwell C scale of 22 or lower (the hard steels
are much more prone to attack from HE).

3. Stress level - At low stresses HE failures are lessened. In HE susceptible steels there is a
threshold below which HE will not occur. This threshold value is lowered for higher strength
steels.

6-4

4. Internal stress The internal stress, which includes stored tensile stress produced by welding,

bending or surface damage is a common initiator for corrosion.

5. Hydrogen concentration The time to failure of any high strength steel is a function of the con-

centration of hydrogen.

6. Temperature HE failures usually do not occur above 150F. (A special exception to this is the

case of stress corrosion cracking7)

Two special cases of HE are sulfide corrosion cracking and stress sulfide cracking. Sulfide corrosion
cracking, SCC, causes a brittle failure of metals by the action of localized corrosion and stress.lg SCC
is normally encountered near the bottom of wells and in hotter environments than other forms of HE.7
In sour gas systems, SCC causes failure of high strength steels, all types of stainless, and many low
alloy nickel-based alloys.lg SCC will also occur in production of hot brines (chloride rich). SCC is common in stainless alloys and materials. Alloys containing about 8% nickel are the most ~usceptible.~
Alloys with over about 42% nickel are usually immune to SCC.7 These alloys include Inconel, Incoloy,
Monel and Hasteloy. Other immune alloys may include cobalt-cromium-nickel-molybedenum alloys,
nickel-free low alloys, and nickel-free martensitic stainless steels.
There is a relationship between the environment and the metal to cause SCC; only certain metals will
crack in given environments at the critical stress level. SCC is considered to be an anodic process in
which a crack is initiated (usually by HE) and reaction progresses inside the crack. The dissolution of
metal at the tip of the crack controls the process. The environment inside the crack may be very different from that on the surface of the casing due to the large area of metal and the protected environment. The pH of the produced fluids, for example, may be between 4 and 6, while inside the crack, pH
may be between 1 and 2 (highly acid) because of higher concentration of chloride ions, which
increase the local corrosion rate.lg The overall corrosion rate of a material that is undergoing SCC
may be low and outer appearance may be good. However, the detrimental SCC corrosion in the crack
occurs as the result of the localized, often unseen, attack.
Stress sulfide cracking, SSC, occurs in high strength (high hardness) steels exposed to sour gas production. It is also known as hydrogen stress cracking and hydrogen embrittlement cracking.20 SSC is
cracking that results from hydrogen charging (large volume entrance of hydrogen) of high strength
and/or high hardness steels. Most SSC occurs at lower temperatures and is prevalent in the upper
parts of the well. It may accelerate during periods of shutin or cool down, requiring only a reduction in
temperature to become active. SSC is a form of hydrogen embrittlement and is a bulk alteration of the
metal surrounding the surface areas.
Most corrosion rates increase with an increase in temperature up to about 140 to 150F. At this point,
several forms of corrosion are lessened and some corrosion inhibiting films begin to form. Although an
increase in temperature renders the steel more susceptible to attack by SCC, an increase in temperature decreases the rate of stress sulfide cracking, SSC.At higher temperatures, the atomic hydrogen
that contributes to the initiation of the crack by embrittlement is able to diffuse out of the steel. Temperature thresholds exist for SSC and above these limits, SSC does not occur. The limits for hydrogen
sulfide content and temperature are indicated in Figures 6.2 and 6-3. Figure 6.3 shows that the temperature threshold for SSC free behavior is dependent upon the grade of steel. SSC can be controlled
with use of lower strength alloys.

Controlling Corrosion

Approaching corrosion control from a well completion position may involve selection of corrosionresistant alloy,i1~i2*19*2-24 films and coatings,2532 liquid
or cathodic protection
device^.'^^^-^^ The least expensive route will depend on the produced or injected fluids, completion
design and the level of protection required in the operation.

6-5

ssc

0.001

10

do

80

120
140
YIELD STRENGTH (kri)
100

160

180

(Kane & Greer, 1977)

Figure 6.2:

The maximum H2S concentration limit for

SSC-free behavior at 100% of yield strengthapplied stress, shown as a function of the
yield strength of the steel.

m
U

'i20
U

Q6T

Ic

ssc

100

(Kane & Greer, 1977)

Figure 6.3:

Mimimum temperature for SSC-free behavior

at 100% of yield strength-applied stress,
shown as a function of the yield strength of
the steel.

Modifying the produced fluid by changing pH or removing water or dissolved gasses such as oxygen,
CO2, or H2S are usually only available for use in pipelines and injection systems. Gas removal systems such as gas stripping, degeneration and chemical treating may all be used to remove or reduce
the content of gases. Changing the character of the produced fluids is usually achieved by changing
operating conditions to control the separation of the condensing phase.

6-6

T
c
r

i'

f 2

0
00

d
F

(rr

r;

1
0
0
CI

Coatings are a relatively simple and inexpensive way to isolate the metal (the anode and cathode)
from the electrolyte liquid. Permanent coatings include plastic, tars, cement and paint. Coatings are
usually chosen for a protection against a particular liquid. The plastic coatings, for example, include
resins and polymers that are resistant to low pH waters, oxygen, COs, or salts. Coatings are not resistant to all influences however: acids, alcohols, and other materials will destroy some coatings. Care
must be taken in working over wells with coated tubing to avoid damage to the surface of the coating.
Abrasive action such as wireline action or coiled tubing are very detrimental. Damage to coated surfaces offer sites for very localized, intense corrosion.
Liquid corrosion inhibitors act as temporary coatings or films on the surface and are effective in providing a passive film or a coating if they are replenished on a regular basis. Selection and application
of inhibitors are critical elements in the corrosion control program of a well. There are literally hundreds of chemical inhibitors for control of dozens of different corrosion problems on various types of
steels. The inhibitor for a particular application must be selected from lab or field tests at the conditions where the corrosion will be active. Normally, these selection tests are started in the lab and completed in the field with field trials on test metal coupons.
Complete reviews and comparisons of the methods of applying corrosion inhibitors are rare, but a few
case histories do exist. Houghton and W e ~ t e r m a r khave
~ ~ provided data on some corrosion problems
in the North Sea and compared the methods for application of corrosion inhibitors. In the wells that
were used for a database, average workover life was approximately 60-120 days. CO2 corrosion and
erosion were present in these wells. Erosion was determined to have a significant influence on the
rate of corrosion and CO2 corrosion/erosion was found to be the normal mechanism of attack on these
wells.
During the study, the rate of corrosion for these wells was determined to be exponential rather than
linear. Once the corrosion started, very rapid increases in the corrosion rate were common. The most
prevalent place for attack of the corrosion/erosion was at changes in diameter or direction of the fluid
flow. The paper pointed out that sweet corrosion was prevalent in these wells even though there was
less than 1 4 % formation water in the total produced fluids.
Ekofisk wells in the study that had a high GOR showed increased corrosion; probably by providing
greater volumes of CO2 and by increasing the flaw velocities of the produced fluids. The GOR has
also been shown to be a factor in corrosion in other studies. Even in gas wells, a change in flowing
fluid composition because of condensation of C-3+ hydrocarbons can result in a change in corrosion
intensity or location.40 The most common corrosion site depth was in the mid-range from 40007000 ft. The mid-range location on these wells corresponds with gas breakout and increased turbulence from suspended gas that is rapidly expanding due to the lowering of hydrostatic head.
In all cases of wells deviated more than 20, a preferential attack along the low side of the tubing was
spotted. This attack reportedly resulted in troughs 1 in. wide that tracked along the inside of the low
side of the tubing.
This pipe trough development has also been though to be the result of a low oil wetting tendency of
the Ekofisk crude, which would result in a water wetted pipe. If the fluid velocity in these flowing wells
is below 2.5 to 3 ft/sec, the approximate minimum velocity for water entrainment in the oil, a free water
layer would exist at the lowest point due to gravity separation and increased corrosion could occur.8
The corrosion/erosion attack location was identified using casing calipers. Corrosion in caliper tracks
has also been observed. The cause may be that early caliper surveys were not followed with inhibitor
treatment to repair damaged protective films.
In the higher volume wells, preferential attack occurred on the pin-end shoulder on the coupling. The
shoulder seems to cause additional turbulence and pitting is a byproduct of the turbulence.

6-9

The paper reported a comparison of inhibitor treatment types, in terms of both economically application and performance. Formation squeezes with inhibitor, continuous injection, and tubing displacements were all examined. Continuous injection was found to be the least expensive in almost all flow
rates studied.
A second case study, and one that covers economics of chemical inhibitor usage was provided by
Akram and Butler.41 This work showed that the cost of the successful inhibitor protection program was
about $29,000 per well per year, compared with a super alloy tubular cost (for passive control) of
about 1.25 million. The cost of carbon steel tubulars for the same well was $271,000 (all dollar values
are 1982 U.S. dollars). The economic impact of the successful inhibitor program was significant;
34 years of inhibitor operation to equal the simple difference of super alloy and carbon steel tubular
cost. Obviously, the successful control of corrosion using either method depended upon good design
and strict application. All inhibitor films have to be replaced on a regular basis. While this addition is
relatively easy in injection wells by surface addition to injected fluids, it is more difficult in producing
wells. The inhibitor must be circulated into position and allowed to film on a clean surface without
being disturbed by action of other surfactants, inhibitors or solvents. Most inhibitors must be placed as
a dispersed phase in a non reactive fluid without the aid of surfactants. The application of these materials may range from simple dump jobs down the back side (low pressure injection into the annulus
at the surface in a well without a packer) to periodic workovers requiring the well to be shutin while
inhibitor is injected down the tubing. Some wells are completed with a small string of tubing (1/4 in. to
1 in. diameter) down the outside or inside of the tubulars where the inhibitor and other treating chemicals can be injected continuously.
Some naturally passive films (a reaction product of the metal and the wetting fluid) provide a barrier
surface that reduces the potential produced in the corrosion circuit by altering the reactivity of surface.
The film may be a metal oxide laye?5v27 or other reaction by-product that is not easily attacked by produced fluid. These films are recognized as major corrosion controlling mechanisms. Corrosion of low
alloy steels at temperatures below 140F, increase with the partial pressure of CO2 in the gas phase.
Above 140F the corrosion decreases with temperature because of the formation of iron carbonate
and iron oxide films. The films are destroyed by acidizing or erosion during high velocity flow. In certain cases, passivity is designed into the alloy by combining chromium and nickel with iron. Whether
these iron-chromium and iron-chromium-nickel alloys are active or passive depends upon the alloy
composition and the electrolyte. For example, in CO2 rich environments, 13% chrome alloys are successful in preventing corrosion that destroys other alloys.25
Cathodic protection using sacrificial anodes or impressed current to offset the current of the corrosion
cell, can be applied to the outside of casing and pipelines and to the insides of production processing
vessels where a continuous water phase exists. It cannot be used internally in most production tubing
or inside pipelines.

Materials for Sour Service

The following description of materials for Sour Service is from Wilhelm and Kanelg and represents
generalized guidelines on selection of tubular components for hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide
service.
High strength tubular steel grades, often containing chromium and molybdenum designated for use in
H2S service include C75, L80, C90, and some specially processed C95. These materials exhibit necessary resistance to SSC under some specific conditions for use in sour gas operations.
In general, the higher the yield strength of a material, the more susceptible it is to SSC. There are no
recognized carbon or low alloy steel compositions suitable for sour service at ambient temperatures
with yield strength in excess of 110,000 psi. The most widely used criterion for selection of materials
for sour service is hardness. NACE requirement MR-01-75 specifies that for steels to be considered,
they must have a hardness value below HRC-22 (some exceptions to HRC-26).42

6-10

Stainless steel casing (greater than 12% chromium) are used when superior resistance to general corrosion is necessary. Table 2 shows composition of several of the high nickel alloy materials. The
steels increase in cost as corrosion resistance is increased.
The following paragraphs, also from Wilhelm and Kane,lg describe the general classifications of the
high strength alloys available for use in corrosive environments. Stainless steel is a generic term for a
group of steels having a chromium content of over 12%. Most metallurgists refer to the stainless steels
with the more widely based term corrosion resistant alloy, or CRA. The general classes of the alloys
are listed in order of increasing resistance to SCC and SSC (also increasing cost).
1. Martensitic stainless steels, (11-18% chromium) have applications in wellheads and tubing

where high yield strengths are not required.

2. Precipitation hardened stainless steels (12-18% chromium and 6-1 2% nickel) are useful for
downhole equipment or tools that require non-cold-worked, high yield strength materials. Some
of these materials, depending on composition, may be susceptible to SCC and SSC.

3. Duplex stainless steels (22-28% chromium and 5-7% nickel) have a resistance to chloride cracking that exceeds the resistance of low alloy austenitic stainless steels, but they may be susceptible to SSC or SCC in the presence of H2S.
4. Low alloy austentinic stainless steels (18% chromium and 10% nickel) offer better resistance to
SSC than martensitic stainless steels, but yield strengths are limited. These alloys are susceptible to SCC and pitting by chlorides.

5. High alloy austentinic stainless steels contain 20-30% chromium and 20-35% nickel. They
achieve strength through cold work and offer the best combination of corrosion resistance and
mechanical properties of all the CRAs. The cost for these alloys is high.
6. Nickel-based super alloys such as C-276, 718, and MP35N (cobaltlnickel-based) have better
resistance to H2S than most other types of commercial alloys but may be extremely expensive.
They do have the advantage of very high yield strengths.

7. Titanium alloys are slowly being introduced to the industry although the use is rare at the present
time.
CO2 Corrosion

CO2, one of the acid gases, is a very common contaminate in gas, oil and water production, even in
sweet reservoirs. CO2 corrosion of steel is usually a localized corrosion that takes the form of pits of
various sizes. Liquid water is necessary for CO2 corrosion to take place.43 The typical corrosion product of the CO2 reaction is ferrous carbonate.a Dissolved carbon dioxide content is a function of pressure and temperature and pH is much less important. Corrosion increases for increasing carbon
dioxide content.

Pitting produces severe penetration. Outside of the affected areas, the corrosion rate might be limited
and the transition from an affected to an unaffected area can be very abrupt. The action of CO2 attack
has been described as both chemical and physical through e r o ~ i o n Erosion
. ~ ~ ~ can
~ ~ accelerate the
overall corrosion rate by a hundredfold or more by removal of protective scales, oxides and corrosion
inhibitor films. Even for CO2, however, the increase in rates usually is in the area of five to ten
The addition of CO2 gas to water can reduce the pH to a value below 4, promoting acid attack. CO2
corrosion from chemical attack has been generally effectively controlled through the use of 13%
chrome tubulars.

6-11

Although CO2 corrosion and stress sulfide cracking have nothing in common when both corrosion factors are present in a well, control of both forms of corrosion may be accomplished by using a corrosion-resistant alloy to block CO2 attack and a reduced hardness to prevent SSC. Choosing a 13%
chromium steel that has a hardness below 22 Rockwell hardness-C, (LSO tubing), should also be
effective.
One severe drawback to using the 13% chromium steels is that they exhibit very limited resistance to
pitting during storage where air and chloride are present (seacoasts). This type of corrosion can much
more significant inside the pipe, particularly if condensation inside the pipe forms standing puddles.24
In the well, control of pitting corrosion of the 13% chrome steels relies on the deaeration of water.
The second type of severe corrosional effect produced by CO2 is largely physical -the erosional effect
produced by changes in fluid flow direction or an effect often described as ~ a v i t a t i o n . ~Erosion
~ * ~ ~is* ~ ~
the increase in the rate of metal deterioration from the abrasive effects of a fluid flowing into or
through a pipe. Other sources of erosion may include entrained gas in liquids, liquid droplets in gas,
solids in any fluid, very high flow rates, or any restriction in the completion strings that causes a drastic change in the flow velocity of the produced fluids. Erosion may often lead to a removal of the effective inhibitor, corrosion film, or reactant film. Severe cases can be identified by grooves or rounded
pits or holes that are usually smooth and lie along the direction of flow. Removal of a protective inhibitor or corrosion oxide film takes place when the strain on the film or corrosion oxide layer exceeds the
strain for the failure of the film. Erosion by solids and droplets may also affect the tenacity of the film
on an exposed surface. The failure of a corrosion oxide layer takes considerably longer than the failure for most film-forming materials.
Squeezing or continuous injection of inhibitors may not be cost effective if the completion string ID is
smaller than the minimum ID required to prevent erosion. Ifthis principle is violated, the film may be
continuously stripped off, even at high loading rates. Not all inhibitor films react in the same manner to
stripping by erosion; a few products offer very good performance in high velocity applications.
Other Factors

The presence of oxygen either as dissolved or entrained gas substantially increases the corrosion,
Figure 6.4.2 In almost all fluid handling systems, oxygen must be removed prior to injection of water or
shipment of the fluids by pipeline.
The pH of the water and the velocity of the water influence the corrosion attack. The chart in
Figure 6.5 illustrates the relative corrosion of flowing and nonflowing fluids versus the fluid pH. The
velocities shown in the graph are for water velocities of 3 to 7 ft per second. Below 3 FPS, corrosion is
reduced at pHs above 7. Notice for the flowing case that there is very little corrosion in waters with a
pH above 7 (basic). In these high pH waters, iron is almost insoluble, so the byproducts of a corrosion
reaction cannot be swept away from the corrosion site and the corrosion reaction is stopped.
The amount of water in the production is also a factor in corrosion. Water cuts below 25% are likely to
cause less corrosion than water cuts above 45%, especially at pHs below 7. As water cut increases,
the tendency for a steel surface to be oil wet decreases. Corrosion is very low for most oil wet surfaces and very high for most water wet surfaces. Since most wells are at least very slightly deviated,
the water caused corrosion damage may be confined to a trench in the low side of the pipe. In wells
where the flow rate in the tubing is not high enough to keep all the liquids moving at near the same
velocity, the water may reflux (up and down with gas rate changes) in the low side, creating a serious
corrosion trench even at very low water cuts. Inspection with caliper or electromagnetic surveys (measures metal loss through field generation and interruption techniques) can usually spot the trench if
one exists. Water can be produced and carried as an emulsion (entrained water) at flow velocities of
3-1/2 to 5 fps.

6-12

5
10
15
20
CARBON DIOXIDE PPM

25

(Endearn, 1989, Champion Chem.)

Figure 6.4:

Effect of dissolved oxygen on relative corrosion rate.

RELATIVE CORROSION VS pH L VELOCITT

CORROSION-EROSION

7-

11

12

10
8
ALKALINE -pH-

4
ACIDIC

(Endearn, 1989, Champion Chem.)

Figure 6.5:

Relationship of velocity of water and pH to corrosion.

Corrosion by Stimulation Acids

The use of stimulation acids such as HCI and HCVHF create severe problems in the specialty tubulars. Special problems of selective effects of inhibitor^,^^ pitting and intergranular attack,47 detrimental
influence of added organics,48i49and increased corrosion of the fluoride ion,50 require special inhibitors and special inhibition techniques for the high allow steels. The primary attack of the steels by acid
is severe pitting and intergranular attack that is difficult to control with inhibitors. Localized pitting may
be severe enough to ruin a section of the string.
Acid inhibitors work in the same manner as other corrosion inhibitors; by filming and passivating the
surface. The HCI and HCVHF acids are much more severe environments than other types of corrosion
and the inhibitors for these uses are specially blended and have much shorter effective life spans.

6-13

Also, presence of mutual solvents, alcohols, oil solvents and surfactants in the acid may alter or
destroy the effectiveness of some inhibitors.
Some of the expensive super alloys, such as the 13-chrome materials, may be especially sensitive to
HCVHF acid attack and special inhibitors are required.
Destruction of Elastomers

The steels used in the tubulars and well equipment are not the only materials susceptible to corrosion.
The elastomers (plastics and rubbers) used in the seals are also affected by the well fluids and must
be carefully selected to avoid problems. The attack on elastomers by gas is usually by swelling or blistering,5 both involve invasion of the elastomer by the gas. Rapid release of the pressure around a
gas permeated seal will likely cause explosive decompression and destruction of at least the outer
layer, the sealing edge, of the seal. Surprisingly, although gas permeation of a seal can destroy the
seal when pressure is released, the seal may function adequately before pressure release. Reaction
of various liquids to elastomer seals depends on seal type and position, temperature, liquid type, pressure, previous seal contamination and the presence of some lubricants used for tool assembly.52 In
general, nitrile seals are used for most general purpose applications where oil contact is necessary.
Other compounds such as the fluorinated elastomers (e.g., Viton) are available for contact with aromatic solvents (xylene and toluene). Other specialty compounds are available for specific, highly corrosive conditions or contact with powerful solvents; however, seal cost increases quickly with the more
exotic elastomer compounds. Some metal-to-metal seals are being offered where elastomer destruction is most severe.53
Microbial Corrosion

Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) active corrosive influence of the attached (sessile) bacteria c o l o n i e ~ . The
~ * ~ problems
~
are two fold; the colonies cover areas of steel, blocking corrosion
inhibitors from reaching the pipe surface, and the waste products of the colonies are often very corrosive in the protected areas under a colony. The sulfate reducing bacteria, SRBs, are the most detrimental, with the capability of souring wellbores and parts of reservoirs with H2S. Bacteria are
controlled by cleaning the water and treating with bactericides.
Nonmetallic Tubulars

As an alternative to steel casing with its problems with corrosion, fiberglass casing, tubing and rods
are being applied in some ~ e l l sThe
. ~advantages
~ ~ ~ ~ of the plastic materials are excellent resistance
to most forms of water related corrosion and some scale and paraffin deposition. Most applications
have been in shallow, low pressure wells, where high strength is not needed; however, new placement
techniques and plastic formulations are stretching limits of application.
Predictive Techniques and Inspection Devices

Monitoring the rate of corrosion is of critical importance to determine when to repair or replace equipment and to judge the effectiveness of corrosion control techniques on well e q ~ i p m e n t . A~ system~-~~
atic examination of the produced fluid chemistry, operating conditions and failures can describe the
potential for further failure.55 Monitoring of corrosion in the well uses several logging techniques to
monitor abrasion (and other wear), pitting and surface corrosion.
The data from produced fluid analysis includes ion analysis, pH, gas type and content. It can be used
with computed based predictive models to establish a general potential for corrosion in the well. Corrosion coupons inserted into the well stream can verify the predictive results and help evaluate the
effect of an inhibitor. Sections of test pipe are also used, normally in surface piping, to evaluate
selected metals.

6-14

When a corrosion related failure occurs, it is most important that the cause of the failure be determined. The analysis of corrosion products and the characteristic corrosion pattern can usually determine the type of corrosion that caused the failure. Hardness tests, microscopic examination, and
chemical analysis of the failed and unaffected surfaces are also tools of identifi~ation.~~
To monitor the corrosion rate and general condition of the tubulars in the well, a set of instruments are
used that provide data for comparisons with earlier readings to arrive at a corrosion or erosion rate.
These tools include multifingered c a l i p e r ~probes
, ~ ~ for measuring anodic activity,57induction tools to
measure pipe mass,58magnetic devices,59 sonic tools that measure pipe thickness,60and some
experimental tools that locate cracks in the pipe.60 These tools will establish a rate of corrosion or
wear when the results from several regular runs are compared.

Erosion
Surface erosion from solid particles in a high velocity produced fluid stream is normally associated
with unstable formations such as unconsolidated sands. Other occurrences of erosion include cases
of choke and tree loss following rapid back flow of wells after fracturing. The common denominator is
the high flow velocity.
Maximum velocities that can be tolerated in a situation will depend on the flowing fluid and other factors including foaming or emulsifying tendency, solids and entrained gas. Mechanical limitations in the
piping design or metering apparatus may also influence the maximum permissible flow rate.
Although some information exists that a corrosion inhibitor film is removable by high velocity flow,2i61
other authors offer evidence of successful inhibitor film performance at mass velocities of up to
100 Wsec with abrasion where inhibitor was continuously present.62 In any design where flow rates
will be high, a testing program should be used to identify the best method of corrosion protection.
The concept of critical velocity for flow of fluids with no solids in sizing of piping is covered in API RP14E.63 In general, the limits for dry crude flow velocity in pipe is about 30 to 35 fps (ft per second) and
for wet crude, the maximum velocity is 20 to 25 fps. At faster flow rates, some steel may be lost to
abrasion from the clean liquids. In some inhibitor protected systems, the limit of fluid velocity is often
much higher than set by the API equation.

V
P
C
C
C
C

= maximum velocity to avoid corrosion

= fluid density in pounds per cubic ft

= operating constant
= 100 to 125 for long life projects
= 160 for short life projects
= 150 to 300 for projects with good inhibitor filming

The validity of the RP-14E equation has been debated by Craig68-70and Smart,71 and a version of
Craigs information is relayed in the following information.
The erosion rate of any metal surface is strongly controlled by the presence and hardness of naturally
occurring (but metal-composition related) oxide or sulfide film. This film, which depending on composition, can be much harder than the pure metal surface, is one of the main factors that reduce erosion
(and some forms of chemical corrosion).

6-15

Presence of mist droplets in the stream can destroy the natural or added inhibitor barriers and rapidly
increase corrosion. Actual abrasive induced failures of the pipe depend on the entrained droplets or
solids in the gas as well as the density of the gas. Estimates of the densities and good design velocities are contained in Figure 6.6. For further information, refer to the Oil Field Corrosion Detection and
Control Handbook, by Endean, available from Champion Chemicals Inc., Houston.

(Endeam, 1989, Champion Chem.)

Figure 6.6:

Empirically derived curve of suitable design velocities

for flow of liquid and gas in tubing in vertical wells.

The API RP-14E equation is a quasi-rigorous attempt to determine critical velocity for general purpose
projects. Craig 68 proposed flow ranges for a modification of the RP-14E equation, proposed by Griffith and Rabinowicx (1985), where the C factor was calculated. The calculated value of C was based
on actual well conditions. The equation was only very slightly different:

vc = Cp37,
but the C was dependent on flowing fluid and pipe metallurgy, rather than a range of operating constants. When using chemical resistant alloys such as stainless and some nickel based materials
(especially those containing Chromium), the stable range of the C factor in the equation would be in
the range of 160 to 300. The 160 to 300 range for CRA tubulars is well proven infield performance for
long lived projects.
The ultimate value of C is then dependent on alloy composition, oxide or sulfide layer composition,
and flowing fluid composition (H2S, CO2, etc.). The layer composition and fluid resistance would also
change with temperature and impact resistance. Craig proposed a further modification of the equation
to allow input of the oxide hardness layer:

6-16

where P is the measured hardness of the oxide layer in kg/mm2 and p is fluid density in Ib/ft3. The use
of such an equation for calculations is limited at the present time by available data on hardness, P.
Craig offers the following explanation: for Ti alloys, using a hardness of 1,000kglmm2 for titanium
dioxide (Ti02) film formed on the alloy, the C factor would be 189.However, if aluminum oxide (aI2O3)
were incorporated into the oxide of any alloy so it was the predominate film, then P E 200 kg/mm2and
C = 255. Conversely, if a SS or Ni-based alloy containing Cr is exposed to a high H2S environment,
then the film could be predominately Cr2S3, with P - 480 kg/mm2 and C would drop to 138l (with data
from A.A. Ivanko Handbook of Hardness),

Impingement of particle laden fluids on a screen, casing wall, choke, or other surface in the well will
result in some erosion, regardless of the velocity flow. Erosion is usually only severe however, when
the fluid flow velocity is high enough to impact the solid particles on the surface with enough force to
abrade the metal or the natural or man-made coating on the metal surface.
Well completion decisions in wells with solids erosion problems may take one or more of three routines: (1)decrease the flowing liquid velocity with larger perforations, larger wellbores and larger tubing, (2)use hardened blast joints to slow the rate of erosion, and (3)control the solids with gravel
packs and screens.
If the erosion problem is slight, blast joints represent the cheapest methods of control. If erosion is
severe, the producing pays are usually gravel packed.

The erosion rate of any surface exposed to fluids that contain solids depends on the size, roundness,
and composition of the solids, the amount of solids in the flow stream, the velocity of the flowing fluid,
the shape of the flow path and the hardness of the metal layer exposed to the fluid. The worst erosion
conditions are created when sand grain sized (0.01 to O.l),particles of high density materials rapidly
strike the metal surface at angles of about 45to 95.If the energy of the impact is sufficient to dislodge or break the oxide layer, then erosion and some forms of corrosion will be accelerated.

Corrosion References
1. Uhlig, H. H.: Corrosion Handbook
2. Endean, H. J.: Oilfield Corrosion Detection and Control, Champion Chemicals, Houston, 1989.

3. Tuttle, R. N.: Corrosion in Oil and Gas Production, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July
1987),pp. 756-762.
4. Cron, C. J. and G. A. Marsh: Overview of Economic and Engineering Aspects of Corrosion in Oil
and Gas Production, Journal of Petroleum Technology (June 1983),pp. 1033-1041.
5. Patton, C. C.: Applied Water Technology, Book, Campbell Petroleum Services, Norman, OK,

1986.
6. Peabody, A. W.: Control of Pipeline Corrosion, Nat. Assoc. of Corrosion Eng., Houston, TX,
(1967).
7. Rice, P. W.: Selecting Metallic Materials For Downhole Service, World Oil, (Nov. 1989),pp. 7076.
8. Comments from Jack Smart, Welchem.

6-17

9. Smart, J. S.Ill: A Review of Erosion Control in Oil and Gas Production, NACE Paper for presentation at the 1990 Annual Meeting, Las Vegas.
10. Hamby, T. W.: Development of High-pressure Sour Gas Technology, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (May 1981), pp. 792-798.
11. Currie, D. M.: The Use of Corrosion Resistant Alloys in Sour Gas Surface Production Facilities,
Paper OCT 6111 presented at the 21st Annual OTC in Houston, May 1-4, 1989, pp. 583-588.
12. Corbett, R. A. and W. S.Morrison: Comparative Corrosion Resistance of Some High-Nickel,
Chromium-Molybdenum Alloys, Materials Performance (February 1989), pp. 56-59.
13. Bradley, W. B. and J. E. Fontenot: The Prediction and Control of Casing Wear, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, (February 1975), pp. 233-237.
14. Jasinski, R.: Corrosion of N80-Type Steel by C02/Water Mixtures, Corrosion-NACE, Vol. 43,
No. 4, April 1987, pp. 214-218.
15. Bowman, R. W.; A. K. Duniop and J. P. Tralmer: CO/CO2 Cracking in Inert Gas - Miscible Flooding, Materials Performance (April 1977), pp. 28-32.
16. Storey, W. D.: Hydrogen Sulfide Corrosion of Metals, Oilweek, May 20, 1963, pp. 721-724.
17. Littmann, E. S.: Control of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion in Oilfield Production Equipment, Paper Spe 16909 presented at the 62nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, September 27-30, 1987.
18. Berkowitz, B. J., Horowitz, H.. H.: The Roles Of H2S in the Corrosion and Hydrogen Embrittlement of Steel J. Electrochem. Soc., (March 1982), 468-73.
19. Wilhelm, S.M. and R. D. Kane: Selection of Materials for Sour Service in Petroleum Production, Journal of Petroleum Technology (October 1986), pp. 1051-1061.
20. Merrick, R. D.: An Overview of Hydrogen Damage to Steels at Low Temperatures, Materials
Performance (February 1989), pp. 53-55.
21. Kane, R. D.: Special Tubulars Find Expanding Role, Petroleum Engineer (March 1988), pp. 4346.
22. Parkins, R. N.; A. Alexandridou and P. Majumdar: Stress corrosion cracking of C-Mn steels in
environments containing carbon dioxide, Materials Performance (October 1986), pp. 20-27.
23. Ogundele, G. I. and W. E. White: Some Observations on the Corrosion of Carbon Steel in Sour
Gas Environments - Effects of H2S and H2/CO2/CH4/C~H8
Mixtures, Corrosion - NACE, Vol. 42,
NO.7, July 1986, pp. 398-408.
24. Crolet, J.: Acid Corrosion in Wells (CO2, H2S) - Metallurgical Aspects, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (August 1983), pp. 1553-1558.

25. Craig, 6.: How to Determine Erosion-Corrosion Resistance of Chromium Steels, Petroleum
Engineer (March 1989), pp. 24-27.

6-18

26. Videm, K. and A. Dugstad: Corrosion of Carbon Steel in an Aqueous Carbon Dioxide Environment; Part 1 : Solution Effects, Materials Performance (March 1989),pp. 63-67.
27. Videm, K. and A. Dugstad: Corrosion of Carbon Steel in an Aqueous Carbon Dioxide Environment; Part 2: Film Formation, Materials Performance (April 1989),pp. 46-50.
28. Roche, M. and J. P. Samaran: Pipeline Coatings Performance Field Experience of an Operating
Petroleum Company, Paper NACE 28 presented at the Corrosion 87 Conference, San Francisco, March 9-13.
29. Bellassai, S.J.: Coating Fundamentals, Materials Performance (December 1972),pp. 55-58.
30. Banach, J. L.: Pipeline Coatings - Evaluation, Repair, and Impact on Corrosion Protection
Design and Cost, Paper Nace 29 presented at the Corrosion 87 Conference, San Francisco,
March 9-13.
31. Burton, S.A. and R. Ross: Corrosion Protection with Elastomers; An investigation of cathodic
protection effects on elastomeric coated pipelines and risers, Corrosion Prevention & Control
(April 1987),pp. 45-50.

32. Evans, S.:Cost Effective Treatment Looks at Entire Production System, World Oil, (Jan 1990),
pp. 105-107.
33. Annand, R. R.; H. M. Hilliard and W. S.Tait: Factors in the Corrosivity of Seawater Used for
Secondary Petroleum Recovery, Oil Field Subsurface Injection of Water, pp 41 -53.
34. Weeter, R. F.: Conditioning of Water by Removal of Corrosive Gases, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (February 1972),pp. 181-1 84.
35. Alexander, R. A.: Environmental Method Controls CorrosionlCracking in Mobile Bay, J. Petroleum Technology, (Jan. go), pp. 62-66.
36. Simmons, E. J.: Cathodic Protection of Oil Well Casings, SPESC, 1968,pp. 245-255.
37. Smith, H. M.; M. F. Bird and R. H. Penna: Factors Affecting the Cathodic Disbonding of Pipe
Coatings, Materials Performance (Noamber 1988),pp. 19-23.
38. Houghton, C. J. and R. V. Westermark: North Sea Downhole Corrosion - Identifying the Problem; Implementing the Solutions, J. of Pet. Tech., (January 1983),pp. 239-246.
i

39. Frank, W. J.: Heres how to deal with corrosion problems in rod-pumped wells, Oil and Gas
Journal, May 31,1976,pp. 63-72.
40. Reinhardt, J. R.: Phase diagrams can locate gas-condensate-well corrosion, Oil and Gas Journal, April 4,1988,pp. 41-47.
41. Akrarn, N. F., Butler, J. C.: Corrosion in Sajaa Field, Proceedings of the 4th Middle East Corrosion Conference, Bahrain Society of Engineers, Bahrain, January 1988,pp. 535-550.
42. Material Requirements, Sulfide Stress Cracking Resistant Metallic materials for Oil Field Equipment, National Association of Corrosion Engineers Standard MR-01-75.
43. Hilliard, H. M.: Corrosion Control in Cotton Valley Production, Paper Spe 9062 presented at the
SPE Cotton Valley Symposium, Tyler, May 21,1980.

6-19

44. Carbon, H. A.: Corrosion in Natural Gas - Condensate Wells, industrial and Engineering
Chemistry, March 1949, pp. 644-645.
45. Bradburn, J. B., Kalra, S.K.: Corrosion Mitigation - A Critical Facet of Well Completion Design,
J. Pet. Tech., (Sept. 1983), pp. 1617-1623.
46. Garber, J. D. and M. Kantour: How High-Alloy Tubulars React in Acidizing Environments,
Petroleum Engineer (July 1984), pp. 60-68.
47. Burke, P. A.; J. L. Dawson; G. Bailey and R. C. Woollam: Corrosion of Chromium Steels in
Inhibited Acids, Paper NACE 41 presented at the Corrosion 87 Conference, San Francisco,
March 9-13.
48. Jasinski, R.; W. W. Frenier, and S.Grannan: Inhibiting HCI Corrosion of High Chrome Tubular
Steels, Paper NACE 188 presented at the Corrosion 88 Conference, St. Louis, March 21-25.
49. Walker, M. L. and T. H. McCoy: Inhibition of High Alloy Tubulars I1- Effect of Fluoride Ion and
Acid Strength, Paper Nace 189 presented at the Corrosion 88 Conference, St. Louis, March 2125.
50. Walker, M. L. and T. H. McCoy: Effect and Inhibition of Stimulation Acids on Corrosion Resistant
Alloys, Paper Nace 154 presented at the Corrosion 86 Conference, Houston, March 17-21.
51 Spriggs,

D.: Equipment Selection Critical to EOR Operations Pet. Eng. Intl., (Nov. 1987), 28-

30.
52. Moore, N. B.; J. Hellums and R. T. S.Chang: 0-Ring Seal Failure Mechanisms, Paper OTC
6131 presented at the 21st Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May 1-4, 1989,
pp. 83-94.

53. Haeberle, T. and P. J. Kovach: Material Considerations for High-Deformation Sealing Systems
in H2S and Chloride Environments, Paper OTC 6084 presented at the 21st Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, May 1-4, 1989, pp. 403-41 0.
54. Chen, E. Y. and R. B. Chen: Monitoring Microbial Corrosion in Large Oilfield Water Systems,
Journal of Petroleum Tech. (July 1984), pp. 1171-1176.
55. Walker, C. K. and G. C. Maddux: Corrosion-Monitoring Techniques and Applications, Materials
Performance (May 1989), pp. 64-70.

56. Stephens, R. M. and M. F. Mohamed: Corrosion Monitoring and Inhibition in Khuff Gas Wells,
Journal of Petroleum Technology (October 1985), pp. 1861-1866,
57. Myers, R. D.; G. R. Cameron and D. B. Lebsack: An Evaluation of Corrosion Monitoring Techniques for Measuring Corrosion Inhibitor Performance in Sour Gas Gathering Systems, Paper
CIM 88-39-1 16 presented at the 39th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM
held in Calgary, June 12-16, 1988.

58. Iliyan, I. S.;W. J. Cotton and G. A. Brown: Test Results of a Corrosion Logging Technique Using
Electromagnetic Thickness and Pipe Analysis Logging Tools, Journal of Petroleum Technology
(April 1983), pp. 801-808.
59. Moyer, M. C. and B. A. Dale: Methods for Evaluating the Quality of Oilfield Tubular Inspections,
Journal of Petroleum Technology (January 1986), pp. 88-96.

6-20

60. Kiefner, J. F.; R. W. Hyatt and R. J. Eiber: Metal-loss, crack-detection tools targeted, Technology, April 24, 1989, pp. 69-71.
61. Salama, M. M., Venkatesh, E. S.: Evaluation of API-RP-14E Erosional Velocity Limitations for
Offshore Gas Wells, Offshore Tech. Conf., Paper 4485, Houston, 1983.
62. Jones, L. W.: Corrosion and Water Technology, Oil and Gas Consultants International, Inc.,
Tulsa, 1988.
63. API Recommended Practice for Design and Installation of Offshore Production Platform Piping
Systems, API RP-14E.
64. Altunbay, M., Kalra, S.K.: Nomograph Helps Predict Erosional Control, World Oil, (March
1988), pp. 43-45.
65. Oney, C. L. Fiberglass Line Pipe Requires Special Care, Pet. Eng. Intl., (Nov. 1987), 34-36.
66. Oney, C. L. Special Considerations Needed for Fiberglass Tubing, Pet. Eng. Intl., (Dec. 1987),
29, 30.
67. Kane, R. D., Greer, J. B.: Sulfide Stress Cracking of High-Strength Steels in Laboratory and Oilfield Environment, J. Pet. Tech., November 1977, pp. 1483-1488.
68. Craig, B. D.: Predicting Critical Erosion-Corrosion Limits of Alloys for Oil and Gas Production,
Material Performance, pp. 59-60, September, 1998.
69. Craig, B. D.: Critical Velocity Examined for Effects of Erosion-Corrosion, Oil and Gas J., pp. 99,
Vol. 5, No. 27, 1985.
70. Craig, B. D.: Equation Clarifies Critical Velocity Calculation, Pet. Eng. Int., pp. 42, Oct. 1990.
71. Smart, J.: The Meaning of the API RP14E Formula for Erosion Corrosion in Oil and Gas Production, Corrosion/91, paper 85, Houston, NACE, 1991.

6-21

Appendix 6.A
Velocity limits for clean liquid erosion in tubulars can be described with an equation from API RP 14E:

"@

0'/2

(6.11)

where:
V,

C
p

= maximum allowable velocity, Wsec, above which erosion would be expected to occur

for a clean, solids free fluid.

= a constant, typically 100 to 125. 100 recommended for continuous flow, 125 recommended for intermittent flow.
= density of fluid at flowing pressure and temperature, Ib/fL3

From this equation, it is seen that erosion for clean liquids would be unlikely at normal flow rates.
Presence of gas and solids can quickly change the erosion attack and damage may occur at much
lower flow rates. When gas in the produced fluid is responsible for erosion, the solution is usually a
reduction in rate or the use of larger id tubulars. With tubing strings that are single sized, the velocity
at the top of the string is a maximum for the well. Tapered strings, with smaller diameter tubing near
the bottom of the well may have the maximum velocity downhole. This velocity may be estimated by
calculating an estimate of the flow rate of the gas and then dividing by the tubing area.

where:

Q
R
Z

= gas flow rate mcf/d

= absolute temperature,

O F

+ 460"

= compressibility factor
Z estimates: Z = 1 if P c 1000 psi, Z = 0.9 if P > 1000 psi

P
= operating pressure at the depth of interest in psi
= gas flow rate, cfs
F,
The gas velocity, V; in feet per second is then the rate divided by the area of tubing id.

V=

6
tubing inside area in ft2

If the pressure is not known, it can be estimated by subtracting the gradient of the gas from the surface pressure to the proper depth. This process, as detailed in Figure 8.8 is not highly accurate since
it uses the shut in wellhead pressure and a static gradient instead of a flowing wellhead pressure and
a flowing fluid gradient. It will only work for dry gas. Much better estimates are available from multiphase flow programs.

6.A-22