Nace 2021 16698

16698
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Evaluation of Scale and Corrosion Inhibitors using a Jet Impingement Method
Hunter Thomson, David Nichols & Gordon M. Graham

Scaled Solutions Ltd
6 Nettlehill Road, Houstoun Ind. Est.
Livingston, EH54 5DL
UK
ABSTRACT
Scale and corrosion testing under high shear flow conditions, and selection of effective inhibitors, is of
increasing importance in oilfield production. Evaluation of inhibitors using an impinging jet technique to
generate high shear conditions is well-known with regard to corrosion, but has recently been adapted to
apply to inorganic scale processes. This paper demonstrates the utility of the technique in assessing
scale deposition and corrosion in the same system and under the same hydrodynamic conditions, and
the effect of inhibitors on the two processes.
The results illustrate scale and corrosion processes occurring simultaneously in the same system and
how these are affected by the system hydrodynamics. Both scale inhibitor and corrosion inhibitor
performance were found to be affected by the flow conditions with higher concentrations of each being
required as surface shear stress was increased. The impact of both types of inhibitor being present in
the system together was also investigated.
The jet impingement test method therefore provides an additional laboratory technique that can be
used to evaluate both scale deposition and corrosion under very high shear stresses that cannot be
readily achieved by alternative approaches. This work also highlights the importance of testing under
field representative conditions and advances the understanding of inhibitor performance in these
systems.
Key words: Jet Impingement, Corrosion, Inorganic Scale, Shear, Inhibitor Testing
INTRODUCTION
Shear stress, a force generated by the movement of fluid across a metal surface, has long been
recognized as a key parameter in determining both corrosion processes and the performance of
chemical inhibitors in an oilfield production system.1 Inorganic scale deposits are commonly found in,
or near, areas of turbulence such as valves, submersible pumps, flow restrictions etc. indicating that
increased shear stress and associated turbulence has significant effect on this process also.
Therefore, having appropriate laboratory techniques to evaluate inhibitor performance under these
1
© 2021 Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise)
without the prior written permission of AMPP.
Positions and opinions advanced in this work are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of AMPP. Responsibility for the content
of the work lies solely with the author(s).
conditions and understanding how these processes are affected by elevated shear conditions is of
critical importance. This is particularly the case as the use of more complex well completions using
inflow control devices (ICDs) and valves (ICVs) becomes more common. The narrow orifices in these
devices, combined with high flow rates, can result in extremely high shear regimes (>10,000 Pa) which
have been reported to result in significant corrosion and scaling issues being experienced.2-5
Due to the importance of shear stress to corrosion processes there are a variety of test methodologies
regularly used for assessing corrosion rates at moderate wall shear stresses. The increased corrosion
rates and reduction in performance of corrosion inhibitors in areas of elevated shear stress are due to
the removal of protective corrosion by-products and inhibitor films from the metal surface. This surface

will then be exposed to corrosive species, whilst being unprotected, exacerbating corrosion.
Historically however, scale risk analysis typically focused on thermodynamic calculations to determine
the risk of scale, ignoring system kinetics and the impact of flow regimes on scale precipitation from
mildly oversaturated systems.
More recently, attention has turned towards these kinetic effects, particularly for those “metastable”
systems with very mild scaling tendencies which cannot be adequately examined by conventional scale
inhibitor evaluation methodologies which typically rely on static or low shear, laminar flow conditions.6-8
Elevated shear stress and turbulence can influence scale nucleation, surface growth and adhesion
processes and so the development and understanding of suitable methods allowing testing under more
field representative flow regimes is vital.
Despite the growing recognition of these issues, there have until quite recently been limited reports
regarding the development such test methodologies. The majority of reported methods focus on
comparing laminar and turbulent flow regimes, and provide good evidence for the increased risk of
scale formation under turbulent flow, but do not achieve the very high shear stresses which can occur
in real field situations, particularly with ICD/ICVs. Reported approaches include stirring,9,10 rotating
cylinder,11-13 and modified dynamic tube-blocking apparatus.14,15 More recently, alternative techniques
have been developed by the authors and used to advance the understanding of scaling under more
field representative, high shear and turbulent environments.2,3,16-18
The rotating cylinder (RCyl) approach is routinely used in corrosion testing to generate surface shear
on metal coupons. This method consists of a small cylindrical coupon being rotated through the test
fluid and, when used for studying scaling, is capable of increasing scale precipitation due to the surface
shear and turbulence thus generated. However, from a scaling perspective, the fluid-flow regime in the
test cell is not fully representative of that expected in the field and so does not allow direct correlation to
the wide range of conditions under which deposition occurs in the field. The approach is also typically
limited to testing at ambient pressures, and hence a limit of 90°C. Modified dynamic tube-blocking
approaches are also capable of increasing scale formation by introducing turbulence but do not have
the flow rates necessary to generate the high surface shear stresses found in the field.
Jet impingement (JI) is another technique widely used in corrosion testing and widely regarded as the
most suitable for simulating pipeline flow under moderate to high shear conditions.19,20 It involves a
high velocity jet of fluid perpendicular to a flat test piece As the fluid hits the test piece it will be forced
radially outwards generating shear stress on the surface of the coupon which can be readily calculated.
Adjusting parameters such as flow rate and nozzle diameter allows for the shear stress to be finely
controlled. These extreme shear stresses that are not possible using other techniques are readily
achievable in JI equipment
2
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Jet Impingement Test Method

The apparatus was designed and developed to enable jet impingement testing to be used as a routine
laboratory method for both corrosion and scale testing. A custom-made coupon and nozzle holder that
can be submersed in a standard glass cell allows tests to be carried out under ambient pressure at
temperatures up to 90°C and can achieve a surface shear stress up to 1000 Pa. In this set-up the brine
is recirculated continuously around the system.
Shear Stress Calculation

The JI test method used is based upon ASTM G208-12,22 this describes how the velocity, and thus
shear stress, of the test fluid changes as it radiates out along the test coupon. Near to the jet the flow
is largely axial, changing rapidly to become parallel to the surface of the test coupon. In the region of
maximum velocity and minimum jet thickness, at approximately 2 to 4 radial distances from the center,
the shear stress exerted can be calculated as:
2.0
r
 w  0.1788    U  Re 2
0
 0.182
 
 r0 
Where:
w = wall shear stress (N/m2 or Pa),
ρ = density (kg/m3),
U0 = velocity (m/s) of the flow at the position of leaving the nozzle,
r = distance from center (m),
r0 = jet nozzle radius (m),
Re = Reynold’s number ( 2r0  U 0 / υ), and
υ = kinematic viscosity (viscosity/density) of the test liquid (m2/s)
The shear stress quoted throughout this report for JI tests is that found at r = 2r 0; the point of maximum
flow and minimum jet thickness. The flow regime caused by a 1 mm jet impinging on a flat plate placed
perpendicular to the jet is illustrated in Figure 1.
jet diameter 1 mm
direction of jet
500
region B - high shear region B - high shear
transition zone transition zone
400
shear stress (Pa)
300
region A - laminar stagnation zone

200
centre of jet
100
0
-2 -1 0 1 2
Coupon
distance from centre of coupon(mm)
Note: The plot displays only the stagnation and wall jet region: the hydrodynamic boundary region is omitted
Figure 1: Variation in shear stress vs. radial distance in jet impingement technique
3
Inhibitors
The corrosion inhibitors used in this work were conventional amine-based inhibitors (quaternary
ammonium compounds). The scale inhibitors used in this work were a generic diethylene triamine
penta-(methylene phosphonic acid) (DETPMP) and a generic vinyl-sulphonated co-polymer (VS-Co).
The concentrations given are with respect to the formulated chemicals as received and not the active
component (which is 45% for the DETPMP inhibitor and 30% for VS-Co).

Corrosion Testing
Linear polarization resistance (LPR) measurements were conducted with a scanning range from –10 to
+10 mV (with respect to the open-circuit potential) and a scanning rate of 30 mV/min, with readings
taken every 30 minutes over the test period. For these tests approximate Tafel constants () of
120 mV/decade were assumed, due to the different flow conditions and shear stresses across the test
coupon.
Scale Testing
The brine was sampled at various time points and the ion concentrations were determined by
inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES). The test conditions used for
scale and corrosion JI tests in this work are given in Table 1 below. In all tests the coupon had a
diameter of 12.2 mm and was positioned 4 mm from the tip of a 1 mm diameter jet nozzle.
Table 1
Summary of Test Conditions
Condition A B C
Temperature 80°C 90°C 80°C
Pressure Ambient Ambient Ambient
Brine Brine A Brine B Brine C
Gas 1 bar CO2 1 bar N2 1 bar CO2
Substrate UNS G10180 steel L80-13Cr steel UNS G10180 steel
pH 5.1 – 5.3 5.5 5.4 – 5.5
Brine Compositions
Three similar brine compositions were used in this work, representing 50:50 mixtures of formation
waters and seawater typical of that produced from some fields in the Middle East. The compositions
are given in Table 2. The brines were filtered through a 0.45 micron filter and sparged with CO2 or N2
before testing. Sulphate and bicarbonate ions were added immediately prior to the start of the test.
Table 2 also gives the saturation ratios (SR) of these brines under test conditions (ambient pressure,
Brines A & C at 80°C, Brine B at 90°C) calculated using OLI ScaleChem v9.1
4
Table 2
Brine Compositions and Predicted Saturation Ratio
Concentration (mg/l)
Ion
Brine A Brine B Brine C
Sodium 32000 31500 32000
Calcium 5750 5250 5750
Magnesium 1500 0 1500
Potassium 0 0 0

Barium 0 5 0
Strontium 400 375 650
Sulphate 0 1600 1600
Bicarbonate 100 0 100
Chloride 62981 62665 63183
Saturation Ratio
SrSO4 - 5.4 6.1
CaSO4 - 2.3 1.7
CaSO4.2H2O - 0.9 0.8
CaCO3 0.3 - 0.3
RESULTS
Condition A
Jet impingement tests were conducted in Brine A at 80°C with wall shear stresses between 0 and
1000 Pa on a carbon steel (UNS G10180) coupon to determine the effect of increased shear on the
corrosion rate (CR), with analysis by LPR. The 0 Pa test was conducted in the same apparatus but
with no flow through the nozzle. The results from these tests are shown in Figure 2 where the average
CR measured over a 20 hour period is plotted against the shear stress.
Figure 2: Plot of corrosion rate vs shear stress

5
It was observed that the average, uninhibited CR increased with shear stress from 2.3 mm/y in the
static (0 Pa) test to 7.2 mm/y at 200 Pa. Above 200 Pa, the corrosion rate appeared to reach a plateau,
with an average of 7.1 – 7.6 mm/y observed at 400 and 1000 Pa.
Further tests with more sophisticated apparatus were also conducted to extend this dataset to
10,000 Pa. This methodology uses a jet impingement autoclave cell and high flow rates (e.g. 8 l/min
through a 2 mm diameter nozzle).21 This system allows testing at higher temperatures and pressures;
10,000 Pa tests were conducted at 95°C and 70 bar. The average corrosion rate measured over 20
hours was 59 mm/y indicating that significantly increased corrosion can occur at these very high shear
stresses above the plateau region observed from 200 – 1000 Pa. Thus, the most dramatic increases in

corrosion rate for these uninhibited tests are observed between 0 and 200 Pa, with minimal further
increases after that until very high wall shear stresses much greater than 1000 Pa, common in and
around ICDs/ICVs, are reached. Note: the corrosion rate by weight loss was also determined alongside
the LPR tests and compared well with the LPR data averaged over 20 hours for all wall shears tested.
After establishing the baseline corrosion rates under a range of wall shear conditions, the performance
of a quaternary-ammonium-based corrosion inhibitor (CI-A) under these conditions was investigated.
This inhibitor was assessed at concentrations of 50 and 100 ppmv (after an initial 2 hour period of pre-
corrosion). The results from these tests are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Plot of inhibited corrosion rate vs shear stress
The effect of increased wall shear stress on the performance of the inhibitor was clearly observed. In
the static (0 Pa) test, a concentration of 50 ppmv was able to achieve a corrosion rate below 0.1 mm/y.
As the shear stress was increased, the performance obtained with the same dose of inhibitor
decreased. Slightly improved performance was seen when the dose was increased to 100 ppmv but the
same trend was observed. This indicates that this particular inhibitor is not forming persistent films on
the coupon surface and therefore would not be recommended for application in high wall shear stress
environments. A 10,000 Pa autoclave JI test with 50 ppmv of this CI showed no evidence of inhibition
with corrosion rates comparable to the uninhibited system.
6
Comparative tests were carried out using static LPR bubble cell and rotating cylinder electrode (RCE)
techniques, the results are shown in Figure 4 and given in Table 3.

Figure 4: Plot of corrosion rate and inhibitor performance with different test methods
Table 3
CI-A Inhibition Performance at 0 and 40 Pa
Average
Shear
[CI-A] Test Corrosion
Stress
ppmv Method Rate (mm/y)
(Pa)
after 18h
0 30 Bubble Test 0.71
0 50 Bubble Test 0.64
40 30 RCE 1.28
40 30 JI 1.97
40 50 JI 1.60
The corrosion rates observed for CI-A at 40 Pa are much greater than the corresponding
concentrations at 0 Pa with CI-A being ineffective at higher shear (40 Pa), with corrosion rates of
> 0.1 mm/y. Chemical CI-A, which is a simple generic quaternary ammonium salt based inhibitor,
formulated with no additives to enhance its surface adsorption, does not form a persistent enough
protective film under the conditions examined. Note: This product was used here to illustrate the
potential risk posed if the appropriate shear stress is not considered during performance testing. Other
formulations were additionally tested and were shown to perform at elevated shear.21
7
Condition B
A further series of tests were conducted with Brine B which illustrate the utility of the jet impingement
technique for examining scaling processes, provide comparison with static and rotating cylinder
methods, and demonstrate that the effect of shear on SI performance may depend on the chemical
nature of the inhibitor. This brine system is mildly supersaturated (Saturation Ratio, SR, > 1) with three
sulphate scales; 2.3 for CaSO4, 5.4 for SrSO4, and 10.4 for BaSO4. In these tests, the coupons used
were L80-13Cr steel to minimize the effect of corrosion processes.
Figure 5 shows a comparison of strontium ions remaining in solution over a 48 hour test duration when
scaling is assessed using static, rotating cylinder (RCyl) and jet impingement approaches (the values

shown are the mean from several tests). It has previously been reported that no scaling is observed
with this brine over 4 hours in a standard tube-blocking test.17 The mild scaling potential of this brine
system is clearly demonstrated by the long induction time before precipitation occurs under static
conditions. No measurable precipitation of strontium sulphate occurs within 24 hours. Under rotating
cylinder conditions, SrSO4 had started to precipitate after 24 hours with further scaling occurring by 48
hours. The jet impingement method consistently resulted in more SrSO4 having precipitated after 24
and 48 hours. Further analysis, not shown here, demonstrated that a similar effect was observed for
the precipitation of barium sulphate in this system.
The increased rate of scaling observed with the JI technique compared to RCyl at the same maximum
shear stress is due to the different hydrodynamic flow regime in the test cell. In the JI apparatus, the
whole of the fluid is recirculated and passes repeatedly through the high shear, high turbulence region
around the jet and coupon. In the RCyl technique, the majority of the fluid is in a relatively static zone
and not in the small area of turbulence and shear next to the coupon. The long test times under jet
impingement conditions are considered to be relevant to field production conditions, with much shorter
residence times under high shear or turbulent conditions due to the nature of the method. It is
estimated that the brine only spends a few seconds in the high turbulence zone between the nozzle
and coupon each time it is recirculated through the system. Therefore, based on the flow rates and
volumes, the fluid residency time in the turbulent zone would be several minutes over a 24 hour test.
Percentage of strontium remaining in solution during uninhibited scaling tests for Condition B
100
90
80
70
% Sr ions remaining in solution
60
2h
50
4h
24 h
40 48 h
30
20
10
0
Static 10 Pa 40 Pa 80 Pa 40 Pa 80 Pa 200 Pa 400 Pa
Rotating cylinder Jet impingement
Figure 5: Strontium analyses vs time from Brine B scaling tests by different methods
8
Jet impingement tests were conducted in the presence of scale inhibitors to determine the minimum
effective dose (MED) required to prevent SrSO4 and BaSO4 precipitation in this brine system. Two
generic scale inhibitors, a generic diethylene triamine penta(methylene phosphonic acid) (DETPMP)
and a vinyl sulphonated co-polymer (VS-Co), were tested. The results from these tests are
summarized in Table 4.
Table 4
Minimum Effective Doses (MED) Determined From JI Tests
SrSO4 MED BaSO4 MED

(mg/l) (mg/l)
24 h 48 h 24 h 48 h
40 Pa 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
DETPMP
400 Pa 0.5 1 0.5 2
40 Pa 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5
VS-Co
400 Pa 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5
It was found that for the DETPMP inhibitor the MED was affected by the shear regime with a higher
concentration being required at 400 Pa than at 40 Pa. At 40 Pa, scaling of both SrSO4 and BaSO4 was
essentially inhibited at least 24 hours at doses down to 0.25 mg/l, whereas a higher dose was required
to achieve effective inhibition at 400 Pa. A dose of 0.5 mg/l was required to suppress significant SrSO4
precipitation for 24 hours, though 1.0 mg/l was required for a 48 hour period. A dose of 0.5 mg/l SI was
also effective for 24 hours against BaSO4 under shear stress of 400 Pa, but this had to be increased to
2 mg/l to inhibit scaling completely over 48 hours. In contrast to the results obtained with the
phosphonate SI (DETPMP), the performance of the VS-Co inhibitor was not significantly affected by
increasing the shear stress in the test. In both 40 and 400 Pa tests, an MED of 0.5 mg/l was
determined for SrSO4 and BaSO4 scaling over 48 hours and a dose of 0.25 mg/l was effective at
preventing precipitation over 24 hours. The differences in performance and effect of shear between
these two types of inhibitor may be due to the primary mechanism of inhibition; polymeric inhibitors are
generally regarded as preventing nucleation whereas phosphonates operate as crystal growth
inhibitors.23 The influence of shear and turbulence on heterogeneous versus homogeneous nucleation
will also be a factor. The relationship between the chemical nature of inhibitor and its ability to remain
effective under high shear, turbulent conditions is an area of ongoing research.
These results demonstrate that scale inhibitor evaluation could be carried out using the jet impingement
technique in a brine system that is too mild to be assessed using conventional static or tube-blocking
techniques without modifying the composition. The effect of increased shear stress on required
inhibitor concentrations was further demonstrated although it was found that this is also dependent on
the chemical nature, and hence presumably mechanism of operation, of the particular inhibitor.
9
Condition C
We then went on to assess whether both the corrosion and scaling processes could be studied
concurrently within the same jet impingement test cell, under identical conditions. The composition of
Brine A was modified to give a mildly supersaturated brine (C) with saturation ratios (SR) similar to
condition B: 6.4 for SrSO4, 1.7 for CaSO4, 0.8 for CaSO4.2H2O, and 0.3 for CaCO3. Corrosion rate was
measured by LPR as before with samples taken for ICP analysis to determine scale formation. JI tests
were conducted with a maximum shear stress of 40 Pa under four different conditions:
(i) uninhibited
(ii) in the presence of corrosion inhibitor (CI-B, 50 ppmv)

(iii) in the presence of scale inhibitor (DETPMP, 5 ppmv)
(iv) in the presence of both inhibitors (concentrations as above).
Each test condition was carried out in duplicate and the mean results are given. The scale inhibitor
was included for the full duration of the tests and the corrosion inhibitor was added following 2 hours
pre-corrosion. As the highest predicted saturation ratio for this brine was for SrSO 4 this was the scale
the analysis focused on. Figure 6 shows the percentage of strontium ions remaining in solution for each
test after 0, 2 and 20 hours.
Percentage of strontium remaining in solution during jet impingement test for Condition C
100%
80%
% Sr ions remaining in solution
60%
40%
20%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
59%
36%
77%
46%
99%
92%
0%
Blank CI SI CI + SI
0h 2h 20 h
Figure 6: Strontium analyses vs time from Condition C jet impingement tests
As before, the amount of scaling cation (Sr) in the uninhibited test reduces over time indicating the
formation of SrSO4 precipitate even though the supersaturation is mild. The SI tested at 5 ppmv does
not show such a reduction indicating that the inhibitor is effective at this concentration. Looking at the
test with only CI present there is a similar trend to the uninhibited test indicating SrSO4 formation,
however the rate of scale precipitation is lower suggesting that the CI has a slight inhibitory effect on
the formation of scale. This is not unexpected given that CIs are surface active agents and may adsorb
onto the crystal surfaces retarding growth or the reduced corrosion rate leads to a smoother surface.24
Considering the test with both inhibitors present it is clear that the corrosion inhibitor is reducing the
efficacy of the scale inhibitor shown by a slight reduction of strontium concentration in solution over the
20 hour test period. This may indicate a slight incompatibility between SI & CI, or equally this may be
overcome by adjusting the concentration of SI present. There are a number of possible mechanisms
10
which may cause this including competitive adsorption – inhibitors function by adsorbing onto either a
metal surface (CI) or crystal growth site (SI) and can be in competition. Or due to the formation of a
complex between the two types of inhibitor; generally CI are cationic species and SI are anionic
species, so may form a complex and reduce their activity.25

Figure 7: Plot of corrosion rate vs time for combined scaling/corrosion jet impingement
The corrosion rate data is displayed in Figure 7 as a plot of corrosion rate (in mm/y) vs. time (hours).
Focusing initially on CI performance, it achieves a corrosion rate of 0.96 mm/y at the end of the 20 hour
test, a 69% reduction in corrosion rate compared to the uninhibited test. This indicates poor inhibitor
performance under the conditions tested as typically a benchmark of <0.1 mm/y is used as a pass
criterion for corrosion inhibitors. Looking at the tests containing SI it is clear that it has a slight inhibitory
effect on corrosion, as discussed earlier this is not an unusual observation.24,25 When both inhibitors
are tested together the final corrosion rate achieved was 0.72 mm/y, a 77% reduction in corrosion rate
indicating that these inhibitors may have a slight synergistic effect on inhibiting corrosion, though the
benchmark is still not achieved. The corrosion rate of the blank test remains relatively constant over
the test indicating that although SrSO4 is precipitating the growth of scale on the electrode surface is
not sufficient to inhibit corrosion in this system.
These tests show that both corrosion and scaling processes can be assessed in the same mild scaling
system at representative shear stress. This also has the advantage of testing the effectiveness of both
scale and corrosion inhibitors as well as the compatibility between them and how they interact for both
processes.
11
CONCLUSIONS
The jet impingement technique has been shown to be a suitable laboratory method to evaluate both
scale deposition and corrosion processes under moderate to very high shear stress conditions (10 –
1000 Pa). In particular, this approach is able to test at shear stress values that are not readily
achievable by other methods and are increasingly important in today’s production environment. The
results presented here demonstrate that the method allows routine testing of scale and corrosion
inhibitors to ensure that those selected for application in the field are suitable for use in locations where
high shear stress flow conditions are expected.

In particular, this work demonstrates that the JI technique can be used for simultaneous evaluation of
scale and corrosion inhibitors in the same test cell and therefore experiencing the same hydrodynamic
regime including shear stress. This allows any synergistic or incompatibility effects of the two inhibitors
to be determined and ensures that the resulting dose rates are appropriate for mitigation of the scale
and corrosion processes expected under the high shear field environment.
The following conclusions can be drawn from this work:

• Shear stress is a critically important factor in determining both corrosion and scaling processes
• The performance of corrosion inhibitors and scale inhibitors are affected by elevated shear
stress and higher concentrations are required with increasing shear. However, this can be
dependent on the chemical nature of the inhibitor
• For scaling, the effect of shear is particularly important for mildly oversaturated systems and has
a significant bearing on the critical saturation ratio above which scaling will occur
• Scale inhibitor evaluation can be carried out in mildly oversaturated systems without modifying
the brine chemistry as often required with conventional low-shear performance tests
• The jet impingement technique allows evaluation of scale and corrosion processes and inhibitor
qualification in elevated shear environments
Overall, the work presented here advances the understanding of scale and corrosion processes under
high shear stress environments. It also highlights the importance of carefully considering appropriate
test methods for inhibitor evaluation in oilfield systems in which these challenging conditions are
expected.
12
REFERENCES
1. J. Palmer, W. Hedges, J. Dawson (editors) “A Working Party Report on the Use of Corrosion
Inhibitors in Oil and Gas Production”, Maney; published for the European Federation of Corrosion on
behalf of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. London, UK, 2004.
2. G. M. Graham, N. Goodwin, E. Albino, H. Guan, H. L. Pinto, M. C. Bezerra, “Minimizing Scale
Deposition Through Surface Enhancement in Downhole Tools”, Paper SPE 169781 presented at SPE
International Oilfield Scale Conference, Aberdeen, UK, 14 – 15 May 2014.
3. G. M. Graham, M. C. Bezerra, N. Goodwin, E. H. Albino, H. L. Pinto, R. B. Bhavsar, “Minimizing

Scale Deposition through Surface Enhancement in Downhole Tools”, Paper OTC 24530 presented at
Offshore Technology Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 29-31 October 2013.
4. Ø. Gustavsen, O. Selle, F. Fadnes, P-E. Svela, E. Gudding, K. Stene, “Inflow-Control-Device
Completion in a Scaling Environment: Findings and Experiences Obtained During Production Logging
in the Heidrun Field”, Paper SPE 134994 presented at SPE annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19 – 22 September 2010.
5. A. H. B. Aouda, T. al Daghar, N. Odeh, T. Morrow, A. Troshko, “Redesigning Completion to
Overcome Downhole Flow Assurance and Corrosion Impacts in a Giant Field, Offshore Abu Dhabi”,
Paper SPE 183179 presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference,
UAE, 7 – 10 November 2016.
6. G. M. Graham, I. Collins, R. Stalker, I. J. Littlehales, “The Importance of Appropriate Laboratory
Procedures for the Determination of Scale Inhibitor Performance”, Paper SPE 74679 presented at SPE
Oilfield Scale Symposium, Aberdeen, UK, 30 – 31 January 2002.
7. G. M. Graham, I. J. Littlehales, K. Melvin, M. Orme, “Laboratory Testing and Field Optimisation
Studies for Mildly Oversaturated Calcium Sulphate (Anhydrite) Scaling Systems”, Paper SPE 80380
presented at SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, UK, 29 – 30 January 2003.
8. M. Yuan, E. Jamieson, P. Hammonds, “Investigation of Scaling Mechanisms and the Influencing
Factors in Static and Dynamic Inhibition Tests”, Paper 98067 presented at the NACE International
CORROSION Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 1998.
9. L. Sutherland, C. Johnston, W. Taylor, “The Influence of Turbulence (or Hydrodynamic Effects) on
Barium Sulphate Scale Formation and Inhibitor Performance”, Paper SPE 164070 presented at SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 8 – 10 April 2013.
10. C. Johnston, L. Sutherland, T. Herrman, “The Influence of Turbulence (or Hydrodynamic Effects)
on Strontium Sulphate Scale Formation and Inhibitor Performance”, Paper SPE 169760 presented at
SPE International Oilfield Scale Conference, Aberdeen, UK, 14 – 15 May 2014.
11. A. Quddus, I. Allam, “BaSO4 Scale Deposition on Stainless Steel”, Desalination 2000, 127, 219-
224.
12. G. M. Graham, L. Boak, C. Hobden, “Examination of the Effect of Generically Different Scale
Inhibitor Species (PPCA and DETPMP) on the Adherance and Growth of Barium Sulphate Scale on
Metal Surfaces”, Paper SPE 68298 presented at the SPE Oilfield Scale Symposium, Aberdeen, UK, 30
– 31 January 2001.
13. T. Chen, P. Chen, H. Montgomerie, T. Hagen, R. Benvie, Q. Guo, U. Anyanwu, B. Xu, X. Yang,
“Do We Need Higher Dose Scale Inhibitors to Inhibit Scale under Turbulent Conditions? Insight into
Mechanisms and New Test Methodology”, Paper SPE 169780 presented at SPE International Oilfield
Scale Conference, Aberdeen, UK, 14 – 15 May 2014.
14. L. Jøsang, M. Psarrou, T. Østvold, T. Tjomsland, K. Ramstand, B-M. Hustad, “Scale Under
Turbulent Flow”, Paper presented at Tekna International Oil Field Chemistry Symposium, Geilo,
Norway, 2012.
13
15. R. Benvie, T. Chen, S. Heath, P. Chen, H. Montgomerie, T. Hagen, “New Environmentally
Acceptable Chemistry and Evaluation Methods for Scale Inhibitor Testing Under Turbulent Flow and
Harsh Scaling Conditions”, Paper SPE 155428 presented at SPE International Symposium on Oil Field
Scale, Aberdeen, UK, 30 – 31 May 2012.
16. G. M. Graham, H. Thomson, D. Bowering, R. Stalker, “Correlation of Shear and Turbulence on
Scale Formation and Inhibition”, Paper SPE 169761 presented at SPE International Oilfield Scale
Conference, Aberdeen, UK, 14 – 15 May 2014.
17. D. A. Nichols, D. M. Frigo, G. M. Graham, “Advances in Understanding Effects of Shear and
Turbulence on Scale Fromation, Adhesion and Growth on Surfaces”, Paper SPE 179903 presented at
SPE International Oilfield Scale Conference, Aberdeen, UK, 11 – 12 May 2016.

18. D. A. Nichols, H. Thomson, C. M. E. Simpson, G. M. Graham, “Scale and Corrosion Inhibitor
Evaluation under High Shear Flow Conditions”, Paper SPE 184592 presented at SPE International
Conference on Oilfield Chemistry, Montgomery, Texas, USA, 3 – 5 April 2017.
19. ASTM G170-06. Standard Guide for Evaluating and Qualifying Oilfield and Refinery Corrosion
Inhibitors in the Laboratory. ASTM International, 2012.
20. A. Demoz, T. Dabros, K. Michaelian, S. Papavinasam, W. Revie, “A New Impinging Jet Device for
Corrosion Studies”, Corrosion 2004, 60 (5), 455-464.
21. H. Thomson, D. Bowering, C. M. E. Simpson, J. Ray, D. M. Frigo, “Assessment of Corrosion Rates
Under High Shear Conditions – Developments in Laboratory Testing”, Paper SPE 179941 presented at
SPE International Oilfield Corrosion Conference, Aberdeen, UK, 9 – 10 May 2014.
22. ASTM G208-12. Standard Practice for Evaluating and Qualifying Oilfield and Refinery Corrosion
Inhibitors Using Jet Impingement Apparatus. ASTM International, 2016.
23. M. A. Kelland, “Production Chemicals for the Oil and Gas Industry”, page 56, CRC Press, 2014
24. J. J. Wylde, G. C. Allen, I. R. Collins I.R., “A Surface Sensitive Study of the Influence of Corrosion
Inhibitor on Chemical Scale Inhibition”, Paper 74577 presented at the SPE International Oilfield Scale
Symposium, Aberdeen, UK, 30 – 31 January 2002
25. G. M. Graham, D. M. Frigo, I. R. McCracken, G. C. Graham, W. J. Davidson, S. Kapusta,
P. Shone, “The Influence of Corrosion Inhibitor / Scale Inhibitor Interference on the Selection of
Chemical Treatments Under Harsh (HP/HT/HS) Reservoir Conditions”, Paper SPE 68330 presented at
SPE International Oilfield Scale Conference, Aberdeen, UK, 30 – 31 January 2001.
14

Nace 2021 16698

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nace 2021 16698

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nace 2021 16698

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

16698

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Hunter Thomson, David Nichols & Gordon M. Graham

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Jet Impingement Test Method

Shear Stress Calculation

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

region A - laminar stagnation zone

distance from centre of coupon(mm)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Figure 2: Plot of corrosion rate vs shear stress

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Figure 3: Plot of inhibited corrosion rate vs shear stress

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

SrSO4 MED BaSO4 MED

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Figure 6: Strontium analyses vs time from Condition C jet impingement tests

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

The following conclusions can be drawn from this work:

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-pdf/CORR21/4-CORR21/D041S020R002/2446796/nace-2021-16698.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

You might also like