FAILURE ANALYSIS CASE STUDY FOR OIL PRODUCTION FLOW LINE

Introduction

Upstream production Flow line its length is 2-kilometre and its diameter is 8'' carbon steel flow
line that transports oil. Oil leak was happened at the beginning of flowline after wellhead with
several meters and leak is frequented in this flow line. Pipe is replaced after finding localized
metal lose in shape of groove at bottom of line (6 o'clock position) and the groove exist in
around 100 meter of the pipe.
This report aims to determine Failure Root Cause by identifying the damage mechanism and
recommend solution to avoid this problem in the future.

Below table include the diagnosis steps starting with collecting data about the damaged part,
visual inspection, ultrasonic thickness measurement, operation conditions include flow regime
as described in hydrocorr modelling, chemical analysis data and corrosion rate result from
hydrocorr and Norsok 506 models for predicting corrosion rate.

Gathering data

DATA ON THE CORRODED PART (THE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION)

System description
Pipe Material
Corrosion control
Corrosion monitoring
Year of construction
Year of start up
DATA ON THE CORRODED SURFACE BY MEANS OF INSPECTION
Visual observations
Appearance photographs,
drawings
Corrosion products
Ultrasonic thickness
measurements
Operation continuity
Pressure (bar)
Temperature (deg C)
Oil flow rate (bbl/d)
Water flow rate (bbl/d)
Upstream production flow line (Multiphase) contain oil, gas
and water
Carbon steel API-5L-X60
8'' diameter with thickness 12.7 mm (include 3mm corrosion
allowance thickness.)
External: Polyethylene coating plus cathodic protection.
Internal: Corrosion allowance 3mm and No chemical injection.
No corrosion monitoring techniques for this flowline
(weight loss Coupons or ER probe)
2013/2014
September 2016
Localized thickness loss with shape of Groove at 6 o'clock
position with Depth: around 6 mm, Width:16 mm and length
around 100 meter. See photos 1 & 2
The groove is surrounded by uniform yellow brownish scale
(may be iron carbonate)
Thickness of pipe at groove area: 4 to 6 mm
Thickness of pipe: 12.5 to 12.9 mm
Thickness loss around 50 : 65 % at the groove area
OPERATING CONDITIONS
1 year continuous operation without any intermittent
25
52
900
350
 Gas flow rate (MMscf/d) 0.9
Flow velocity (m/s) 0.5
Flow regime Stratified wavy according to Hydrocorr modeling
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (See Appendix 1) SLB analysis report
Chemical analysis as SPECIFIC API Water Emulsion Water
mentioned GRAVITY at 15 Cut volume Salinity
C (ppm)
0.8652 32 34% 12 % 38423
PH 5.5 : 5.8 according to Modeling (Hydrocorr) and Norok 506
CO2 1.5 %
Corrosion rate using hydrocorr (See Appendix 2)
Uninhibited corrosion 1.37 mm/y = 1370 m/y = 54 mpy (very sever) according to
rate Nace SP775 and Eni standard 02555.VAR.COR.PRG
Inhibited corrosion rate 0.16 mm/y = 160 m/y = 6.4 mpy (Moderate)
Corrosion rate using Norsok 506 (See Appendix 3)
Uninhibited corrosion 1.6 mm/y = 1600 m/y = 64 mpy (very sever)
rate
Inhibited corrosion rate 0.078 mm/y = 78 m/y = 3.12 mpy (low)

Discussion and Conclusions

Data which is collected about this damage shows localized metal loss around 6 to 8 mm which
represents around 50: 65 % thickness loss at the groove area at bottom of line (6 O'clock
position) and surrounded by yellow brownish scale which may be iron carbonate and PH which
result from corrosion rate modeling (Hydrocorr and Norsok 506) around 5.5 which means that
there is iron carbonate or bicarbonate in the media result from carbonic acid which result from
carbon dioxide dissolved in water.
When calculating corrosion rate using (Hydrocorr and Norsok 506) using operation condition, it
shows very sever corrosion rate as mentioned in above table from 1.37 to 1.6 mm/year.
Inspection of the failed section of the line revealed that the failure was caused by bottom of line
CO2 corrosion (Mesa attack). It is appeared that corrosion damage had initiated at a number of
discreet locations in the 6 oclock position which progressively developed into a series of
channels or grooves running parallel with the length of the line for a significant distance. The
channels, for the majority of their length, appeared to penetrate through approximately 50 to 60%
of the full wall thickness.

CO2 corrosion mechanism description

Carbon dioxide, CO2, is the main responsible for corrosion of carbon and low alloy steels in oil
and gas production. It represents the greatest risk for integrity of carbon and low alloy steel
equipment in a production environment.
CO2 corrosion depends primarily on the content of CO2 dissolved in the water phase. Dissolved
in water CO2 forms carbonic acid H2CO3 which is a weak acid and dissociates only a little into
bicarbonate ion HCO3- and hydrogen ion H+. However, carbonic acid results highly corrosive for
carbon steel because the primary cathodic reaction is given directly by associated H2CO3 and not
by H+ as normally occurs with strong acids (H+ contributing only secondarily to cathodic
control):
 - -
Primary cathodic reaction: H2CO3 + e H + HCO3 followed by 2H H2
+ - + -
Secondary cathodic reaction: H2CO3 H + HCO3 followed by H + e H2
2+ -
Anodic reaction Fe Fe + 2e
Overall reaction Fe + H2CO3 FeCO3 (iron carbonate) + H2
Fe(HCO ) FeCO + H CO
3 2 3 2 3

Recommendations

Chemical treatment for upstream production flowline shall be achieved by corrosion

inhibitor injection as the inhibited corrosion rate which is calculated by modeling show
significant decrease from very sever 1.6 mm/year to 0.07 mm/year.

Corrosion Monitoring techniques are necessary to prove the integrity of well head flow
lines, corrosion shall be monitored by Weight loss coupons technique and ER probe
technique.

Monitor Water chemistry (PH, Fe, Residual inhibitor, carbonates) by sample analysis
periodically.

VT, UT and RT inspection techniques should focus on general and local loss in thickness
where water wetting is anticipated.