SPE-190909-MS

Effect of Test Approaches & Conditions on Corrosion Inhibitor Screening

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOFCS/proceedings-pdf/18OFCS/2-18OFCS/D021S002R003/1241396/spe-190909-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Hunter Thomson, Ian Carpenter, Rodney Madjitey, Caroline Simpson, Gordon M. Graham, and Dario M. Frigo,
Scaled Solutions Ltd.

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Oilfield Corrosion Conference and Exhibition held in Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 18–19 June 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Laboratory-based assessments of corrosion inhibitors for chemical qualification generally rely on
approaches designed to replicate all key aspects of the corroding environment (ppCO2, field crude, brine
composition, system temperature, pressure, wall shear, etc.). However, the time and costs associated with
testing under fully field representative conditions (e.g. High Pressure/ High Temperature (HP/HT) autoclave
or flow loop tests), often restrict the use of such tests to chemicals at dose rates pre-qualified by simpler
screening tests, especially when many different formulations are submitted for potential qualification.
This paper includes illustrative examples of how apparently small changes to the test methodology
in these preliminary screening tests can have significant influence on the relative ranking and absolute
performance of the chemicals tested, specifically:

• the effect of pre-corrosion;

• adjustment of brine chemistry to avoid artefacts from scale deposition;

• appropriate pH control (representative of the in situ field conditions where high ppCO2 may be
present)
• partitioning between hydrocarbon and aqueous phases can be affected by minor procedural
differences.
The net effect is that product ranking can be significantly affected, potentially leading to the qualification
of less effective products, or more significantly to the de-selection of otherwise effective products, prior
to the more detailed field representative autoclaves / flow loops. More so, since many of the artefacts can
be transferred from the screening tests to the field representative tests, product performance and ranking
in the more field representative HP/HT tests can also be affected, if critical control of the test conditions
is not adhered to.
Examples are provided from both generic corrosion inhibitor formulations as well as case studies
using field specific formulations. This will assist in improving the design of corrosion inhibitor screening
programs and eliminating common errors and artefacts.
Key words: Corrosion inhibitor, Chemical Qualification, testing methods, laboratory, procedures
2 SPE-190909-MS

Introduction
Safe and efficient production relies upon the integrity of oilfield equipment being maintained. This is
typically achieved by appropriate system design and operation. Selection of appropriate materials and
chemical injection are used to maximise field life. Potential chemical treatments are typically examined
under laboratory conditions prior to qualification in the field. There are a variety of methods (Garber et
al. 1994) used to test inhibitors in the laboratory, and while there are standard approaches and procedures
provided by reputable bodies, or individual operators (Kapusta 1999), others have remained an area

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOFCS/proceedings-pdf/18OFCS/2-18OFCS/D021S002R003/1241396/spe-190909-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

of discussion. Even within the industry standards there is often ample tolerance to change significant
parameters of the procedure which can have a considerable impact on the conclusions drawn. It has been
noted that there can still be variance between laboratories (NACE 1D196), even when testing with nominally
well-defined conditions and procedures. Unfortunately it is not always clear, and there can be differences in
opinion on the best way to perform corrosion inhibitor qualifications (Papavinasam, Revie and Bartos 2004).
In addition to these considerations, the development within the oil and gas industry has led towards more
challenges for conventional corrosion inhibitors in the field. This in of itself stretches the limits of current
test protocols whilst also increasing the consequence of non-optimal testing. This paper addresses selected
aspects of inhibitor screening tests, which support the process of qualifying chemicals, to try to offer more
conclusive information on how minor changes to test procedures can alter the conclusions reached.

Selecting Laboratory Conditions versus Field Conditions

Laboratory screening test conditions should ideally reflect field conditions as closely as possible. Parameters
such as temperature, pressure, gas composition, flow conditions, etc., should be matched or reasonable
assumptions used. Given the requirement to generate data in a timely and economical manner, complications
involved such as the very large volumes of fluid required, and with the desire to measure corrosion
electrochemically it is generally impracticable to replicate field conditions exactly in some cases. In order
to design an effective laboratory testing program it must be understood whether any deviations from
"field-representativeness" are acceptable. It is important to not unduly (dis)advantage certain inhibitor
candidates or select test conditions that lead to results that are overall too optimistic or overly conservative.
Additionally, consideration must be given to likely changes in conditions over the lifetime of the field.
When measuring corrosion in the laboratory, a key consideration is to assess changes in conditions using
the appropriate models and consider a combination of the electrolyte chemistry of the aqueous phase and
the complexity of the hydrocarbons with respect to temperature and pressure. Most individual modelling
packages are not configured for this. This means that a combination of software can often be used. This
makes selection of appropriate conditions one of the key factors in determining the effectiveness of a
preliminary screening test program. We show below how the procedure used, or even apparently trivial
changes to these conditions, can affect the test outcome.

Material Selection
The material used in any laboratory testing project should be matched as close to that in the field, both in
terms of chemistry and any physical process that may have been applied, such as annealing/ heat treatment
(Paolinelli, Perez, and Simison 2007; Lopez, Simison, and De Sanchez 2003). Even if a sample metal is
sourced which meets the same specification used in the field equipment, this may still not behave in the same
way: the composition will not be identical, methods of manufacture may have changed with technology,
and specimens will not have had 10+ years of use (Paolinelli, Perez, and Simison 2007). One solution to
this is to pre-corrode specimens, but there can be disagreement on approaches to this, both in terms of
whether it should be done and if it is; how and for how long? Given that almost no inhibitor system has
100% availability all field pipework will have undergone some level of corrosion, pre-corrosion should
SPE-190909-MS 3

result in a surface finish that more closely approaches that present in the field, where such data exist it may
be possible to tailor pre-corrosion duration to the current pipeline finish. Other literature data has shown that
pre-corrosion over a longer period can result in corrosion inhibitors being ineffective that would otherwise
have worked an efficient manner, while it is also possible that longer pre-corrosion duration can lead to
improved inhibitor performance (E. Gulbrandsen et al. 1998).

Field Fluid
It is important to include tests with hydrocarbons present as part of any screening program since CIs tend

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOFCS/proceedings-pdf/18OFCS/2-18OFCS/D021S002R003/1241396/spe-190909-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

to be amphiphilic surface-active agents. Chemicals with virtually no solubility in water have been shown
to be effective in the field so it is by no means clear that an inhibitor needs to be able first to partition
into the aqueous, corroding phase, to inhibit. However, it is also true that many laboratory methods to
evaluate inhibitors are analysed electrochemically and require that they do partition into water to show any
performance at all. In any case, understanding the partitioning behavior of an inhibitor is necessary to be
able to interpret laboratory observations correctly. In this paper we also discuss investigations into various
methods for performing "dual-phase" tests and the effect of duration of pre-partitioning.
As previously mentioned the chemical environment within the production system changes: in
composition, relative amounts of each phase, temperature, pressure, etc. as the field ages (Y. Hu et al.
2016). One potential consequence of these changes is increased risk of scale formation. Scaling is a virtually
ubiquitous flow-assurance issue (Stalker, Graham and Simpson 2004), whilst formation of scale deposits
can reduce corrosion rates by formation of protective layers, this often cannot be relied upon in the field.
Presence of scale can even lead to increased corrosion risk by localizing attack at pits, etc., where the layer is
inconsistent, for example where it has been sheared off by the hydrodynamic environment (A. Dugstad 1999;
Kermani and Smith 1997; Kermani and Morshed 2003). Therefore, if tests are to be prudently conservative,
CIs can be tested in a non-scaling environment. There are numerous approaches for doing this, including
removal or reduction of scaling cations or anions (which we examine in this paper), or addition of scale
inhibitors. Care must be taken to avoid significantly altering the salinity and pH of the fluids, compared
with field conditions, when doing this.
Based on these aspects, therefore, the current paper investigates the following parameters:

• duration of pre-corrosion of the electrode;

• dual-phase dosing methods;

• duration of inhibitor pre-partitioning;

• aspects of the chemistry of the aqueous phase.

Experimental Procedure
The results contained in this paper were obtained by ambient pressure low-shear bubble cell/ kettle tests;
these would typically form the basis of a screening program and be followed by more complex test methods
which can examine under more field representative conditions (eg. to match the CO2 partial pressure). The
corrosion rate (CR) was measured by linear polarization resistance (LPR) at 30 minute intervals (ASTM
G1-03; ASTM G5-14; ASTM G59-97; ASTM G102-89). All tests were conducted at 50°C and ambient
pressure with 100% CO2 sparging using UNS G10180 carbon steel electrodes and the Synthetic Field Brine
shown in Table 1. Any additional conditions are specified below. The pass criteria used in these tests was
to achieve a CR of ≤ 0.1 mm/y within 2 hours of chemical addition, this is based on typical industry
requirement for effective mitigation of corrosion (HSE RR1023 2014) e.g., 3 mm corrosion allowance for
30-year lifetime.
4 SPE-190909-MS

Table 1—Synthetic Field Brine composition used in most tests.

Ion (mg/l)

Na+ 29358

Ca2+ 3145

Mg2+ 503

K+ 372

[SO4] 2−
11

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOFCS/proceedings-pdf/18OFCS/2-18OFCS/D021S002R003/1241396/spe-190909-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

[HCO3]− 494

Cl− 52347

Generic CI – Minimum Effective Dose Determination

Formulations of two generic CI classes were generated using the active ingredients shown, Fig. 1. These
represent typical of commercially available products; other components were also included that are often
used for application in oil fields. Concentrations noted are based on the "as-formulated" product. The
phosphate ester used had lower water miscibility and required the addition of extra solvent. The minimum
effective dose (MED) for these formulations – concentration which achieves < 0.1 mm/y within 2 hours of
addition – was determined in Synthetic Field Brine (Table 1) at 50°C with a 2-hour pre-corrosion stage.

Figure 1—Corrosion inhibitor active components used in the tests

Pre-Corrosion LPR Bubble Tests

Various pre-corrosion durations were used (0, 1, 2, 4 or 20 hours) to assess the effect of pre-corrosion on
the performance a corrosion inhibitors (quaternary amine (Quat)).

Dual Phase Tests

Dual-phase bubble cell tests with a 50:50 v/v brine-synthetic oil mixture were performed on the two inhibitor
formulations. Both the brine and oil were conditioned in the same manner: heated to test temperature and
sparged with 100% CO2 to achieve the desired pH and to eliminate atmosphere oxygen before testing. Four
different methods for chemical addition were examined at a single inhibitor concentration following 2 hours
of pre-corrosion. The dosing methodologies, Method 1 to 4, are illustrated in Fig. 2 below:
SPE-190909-MS 5

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOFCS/proceedings-pdf/18OFCS/2-18OFCS/D021S002R003/1241396/spe-190909-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Figure 2—Schematic of the methods to add inhibitor to dual phase tests.

Tests Using Pre-Partitioned Inhibitors

Where it is not possible to test in the presence of hydrocarbons it is common to "pre-partition" the inhibitors
in a mix of hydrocarbon and brine. To investigate how duration impacts this, equal volumes of deoxygenated
brine and oil were separately introduced into glass cells at test temperature. The selected inhibitor was then
added and the mixture stirred for four different durations – stirring rate was sufficient to make the phases
indistinguishable to the naked eye. After the required mixing duration the aqueous phase was separated and
evaluated in an LPR test, without pre-corrosion, at 50°C with 100% CO2 sparging and G10180 electrodes.
Subsamples of the brines can be analysed by a wet chemical method to assess inhibitor concentration,
normalized to the equivalent concentration of the active product.

Effect of Scaling Ion Removal

It is common to find when testing the performance of CI chemicals, that the brine chemistry supplied
is oversaturated with respect to certain minerals such as calcium carbonate. As a result it often required
to adjust the test conditions to eliminate scaling tendencies that may be present. This can be done by
either altering the brine chemistry or even adding a scale inhibitor. However, differences in approaches do
arise, such as adjust scaling anion concentrations or alternatively adjusting the cation concentrations. Both
approaches have been assessed to examine the effect on the performance of an inhibitor.
The selected brine chemistry for these tests is shown in Table 2. This brine is slightly oversaturated in
regards to calcium carbonate and strontium sulfate at the temperature, pressure and pH of the test. Table
3 summarizes the modifications made to reduce the carbonate scaling tendency. Strontium sulfate was not
investigated as the scaling tendency was expected to be mild and as such present any impact on the test over
the timescales chosen. The tests were conducted at 90°C with 100% CO2 sparging.

Table 2—Brine composition for tests with a scaling tendency.

Standard Brine
Ion
(mg/l)

Na + 32000

Ca 2+ 5800

Mg 2+ 1600

Sr2+ 360

[SO4]2− 1800

[HCO3]− 260

Cl − 63088
6 SPE-190909-MS

Table 3—Compositional adjustments to the scaling brine (Table 2).

Adjustment (mg/l)

Reduced Ca 2+ 1000

Reduced [HCO3] −
150

Results

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOFCS/proceedings-pdf/18OFCS/2-18OFCS/D021S002R003/1241396/spe-190909-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Brine-Only Generic Inhibitor Testing
The minimum effective dose (MED) values of the two corrosion inhibitors were found to be 10 ppmv and
25 ppmv for the quaternary ammonium based inhibitor and phosphate ester based formulation respectively.
The more lipophilic nature of the phosphate ester inhibitor may have contributed to the higher MED in a
completely aqueous system.

Effect of Pre-Corrosion Time on Corrosion Inhibitor Performance

The impact on inhibitor performance from the pre-corrosion duration was evaluated for the quaternary
amine at 10 and 20 ppmv with varying duration of pre-corrosion. The 10 ppmv results are shown in Fig. 3,
plotted versus time after CI addition, while Table 4 gives the corrosion rates after at 2 and 16 hours from
inhibitor injection.
It is clear from Fig. 3 and the corrosion rate after 2 hours in Table 4 that the decrease in corrosion rate
is slower with increasing pre-corrosion time, presumably because the protective film forms more slowly
over a progressively corroded steel surface. The corrosion rates obtained after 16 hours in the presence of
inhibitor were generally higher with increasing pre-corrosion durations although the difference between
rates for those pre-corroded for 1 – 4 hours are small.

Figure 3—Effect of varying pre-corrosion time from 0 – 20 hours: LPR corrosion rate versus time following addition of 10 ppmv
generic quaternary ammonium inhibitor to Synthetic Field Brine; 50°C, ambient pressure, 100% CO2, G10180 electrodes.

There are significant conclusions that can be drawn from the data that could impact field application, with
respect to inhibitor performance. In the context of a field case, a typical 5% down time of CI injection may
be expected, which could correlate to at least 438 hours of non-inhibited corrosion per year. This number
SPE-190909-MS 7

does not even take into account the time taken to reach an effective film formation, that could be in the
region of tens of hours, as is indicated from Fig. 3.
The corrosion inhibitor performance was investigated further at twice the MED (i.e. 20 ppmv)
determined. This was to examine how this would influence the behavior. The results of these tests are
displayed in Fig. 4.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOFCS/proceedings-pdf/18OFCS/2-18OFCS/D021S002R003/1241396/spe-190909-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Figure 4—Effect of varying pre-corrosion time from 0 – 20 hours: LPR corrosion rate versus time following addition of 20 ppmv
generic quaternary ammonium inhibitor to Synthetic Field Brine; 50°C, ambient pressure, 100% CO2, G10180 electrodes.

Table 4—Corrosion rate 2 and 16 hours after addition of generic quaternary

ammonium inhibitor versus pre-corrosion times (details in Figures 2 & 3 caption).

Corrosion rate at 2 hours (mm/y) Corrosion rate at 16 hours (mm/y)

Pre-corrosion time (hours)
10 ppmv 20 ppmv 10 ppmv 20 ppmv

0 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01

1 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01

2 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.01

4 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01

20 0.85 0.22 0.11 0.04

Generally, the corrosion rate measured in the 20 ppmv tests were lower than that for 10 ppmv, this
difference was negligible for the very short pre-corrosion durations. For the 20 hour pre-corrosion, the
increased inhibitor concentration led to faster formation of a film, resulting in ≤ 0.1 mm/y within 6 hours
of injection, compared with the 10 ppmv result that did not reach the criterion after 16 hours from addition.
This data has shown that the duration of pre-corrosion can have a marked effect on chemical performance,
in this case corresponding to a doubling of the MED 10 to 20 ppmv. Although just as significant was the
time taken to reach sufficient performance.

Dual-Phase Bubble Tests – Dosing Methodology

In order to generate results quickly it is common to analyze tests electrochemically. This introduces an
important limitation that the electrodes must be immersed in an aqueous phase, whereas the representative
8 SPE-190909-MS

field system is multiphase. Hence, it is clear that partitioning behavior is important both in the field and
in the laboratory. Four methods of adding CI to dual-phase tests were examined: two methods dosed into
the aqueous phase and two into the hydrocarbon phase, to assess how this effects the partitioning of the
inhibitors. This is described below and shown in Fig. 2:

The LPR probe was added to the sparged brine, then the oil was carefully layered on top and the LPR measurements started.
Method 1: Following the desired pre-corrosion period CI was added into hydrocarbon phase to examine the CI's ability to partition
effectively into the brine phase.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOFCS/proceedings-pdf/18OFCS/2-18OFCS/D021S002R003/1241396/spe-190909-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

The cell was set up as in Method 1 but with a dosing tube added to the brine prior to adding oil. This allowed CI to be dosed
Method 2:
directly into the brine without any risk of oil being introduced inadvertently into the brine.
The test cell contained only brine for the pre-corrosion phase. The CI was added into the oil separately and allowed to mix at the
Method 3: test temperature for 2 hours to encourage full dispersion in the hydrocarbon phase. This mixture was carefully added on top of the
brine following pre-corrosion.
As with Method 3, the cell contained only brine for the pre-corrosion phase. After this, CI was added to the brine and then the oil
Method 4: was carefully layered on top. For comparison purposes, the performance at the same concentration in a brine-only system is also
given.

In addition to the generic quaternary amine, the phosphate ester, which is more lipophilic under these
conditions, was also assessed to see how the different chemistries behave in these tests.
The results are shown graphically in Fig. 5 (quaternary ammonium) and Fig. 6 (phosphate ester); note
that concentrations are based upon volume of aqueous phase.

Figure 5—Effect of CI addition method (1 – 4 in Figure 4): dual-phase LPR corrosion rate
versus time, 10 ppmv (based on brine volume) generic quaternary ammonium inhibitor; 50%
Synthetic Field Brine, 50% synthetic oil; 50°C, ambient pressure, 100% CO2, G10180 electrodes
SPE-190909-MS 9

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOFCS/proceedings-pdf/18OFCS/2-18OFCS/D021S002R003/1241396/spe-190909-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Figure 6—Effect of CI addition method (1 – 4 in Figure 4): dual-phase LPR corrosion rate versus
time, 25 ppmv (based on brine volume) generic phosphate ester inhibitor; 50% Synthetic
Field Brine, 50% synthetic oil; 50°C, ambient pressure, 100% CO2, G10180 electrodes.

Overall, both inhibitors achieved the desired corrosion rate at the previously determined MED regardless
of method of addition. Methods 1, 2, and 4 gave similar results, however Method 3 gave a significantly
higher corrosion rate for the Quat based formulation. For both inhibitors, Method 3 led to slower reduction
in corrosion rate indicating slower film formation; again this effect was more pronounced for the Quat
based formulation. From the viewpoint of product ranking, the Quat would have been ranked as the better-
performing chemical other than if Method 3 had been used to add the inhibitor, in which case the phosphate
ester displayed better performance, albeit at the higher concentration. This shows that a subtle change in
procedure has the potential to alter a key conclusion concerning product ranking.

Effect of Pre-Partitioning Time on Corrosion Inhibitor Performance

Four pre-partitioning durations were examined over 1, 2, 4, and 20 hours, using the Quat and the more
lipophilic phosphate ester inhibitors. The LPR corrosion rates versus time for the Quat are shown in Fig.
7. Also presented is the concentration in the aqueous phase, measured using a wet chemical method. The
results for the phosphate ester are show in Fig. 8, and a table summarizing the corrosion rate after 16 hours
for both inhibitors are shown in Table 5.
10 SPE-190909-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOFCS/proceedings-pdf/18OFCS/2-18OFCS/D021S002R003/1241396/spe-190909-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Figure 7—Effect of pre-partitioning duration: LPR corrosion rate versus time for 10 ppmv (based on brine volume)
generic quaternary ammonium inhibitor, pre-partitioned from 50% Synthetic Field Brine, 50% synthetic oil for various
durations (noted in key; "blank" is the aqueous-only system); 50°C, ambient pressure, 100% CO2, G10180 electrodes.

For the Quat formulation, the longer it is allowed to partition the lower the concentration of the active
component in the aqueous phase. The Quat concentration drops from 10 ppmv after one hour (essentially
the same as that introduced initially, based on brine volume) to close to 7 ppmv after 20 hours, with perhaps
the most significant reduction occurring between 2 and 4 hours, likely indicating that the system is close to
equilibrium after 4 hours. This shows agreements with the standard protocols used by some practitioners,
which state that pre-partitioning should be conducted for 4 hours (Webster et al. 1996; McMahon and Groves
1995). An additional consideration for field crudes (not assessed here) is the potential for emulsions to form
during prolonged mixing.
The corrosion rates measured after 16 hours generally agreed with the results of the residual concentration
in the aqueous phase after partitioning. Where the results with partitioning times of 1 and 2 hours were
within experimental error of one another, as were the 4 and 20 hour data, with the latter pair giving higher
corrosion rate.
The corresponding results with the more lipophilic phosphate ester are shown in Fig. 8, and display the
opposite trend. Showing longer pre-partitioning duration generally giving lower corrosion rate, as may be
expected due to the more lipophilic nature of this inhibitor. This is an important consideration when it comes
to ranking the inhibitors as the data in Table 5 implies that the phosphate ester inhibitor would be ranked
higher than the quaternary ammonium (ignoring the difference in concentration) if the pre-partitioning time
were greater than 4 hours, but at less than 4 hours they give similar performance. As discussed in the
Introduction, pre-partitioning is an important part of electrochemical tests where there is constant mixing.
In such cases the presence of a hydrocarbon can disturb the LPR measurement obtained. To prevent this,
pre-partitioning is carried out in order determine if the inhibitor can effectively partition into the aqueous
phase and to obtain reliable electrochemical data.
SPE-190909-MS 11

Table 5—Final corrosion rates from LPR tests versus inhibitor pre-partitioning time.

Final Corrosion (mm/y)

Pre-partitioning
time (hour) Quaternary
Phosphate ester
ammonium

1 0.03 0.04

2 0.02 0.03

4 0.06 0.03

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOFCS/proceedings-pdf/18OFCS/2-18OFCS/D021S002R003/1241396/spe-190909-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

20 0.05 0.02

Figure 8—Effect of pre-partitioning duration: LPR corrosion rate versus time for 25 ppmv (based on brine volume)
generic phosphate ester, pre-partitioned from 50% Synthetic Field Brine, 50% synthetic oil for various durations
(noted in key; "blank" is the aqueous-only system); 50°C, ambient pressure, 100% CO2, G10180 electrodes.

From these results it is shown that inhibitor performance is strongly influenced by the time allowed to
partition between the hydrocarbon and aqueous phases. For the scenarios reported here only minor changes
are observed after 4 hours. This is supported by the fact that most protocols suggest 4 hour duration of pre-
partitioning. Despite this it is worth noting that in a real system a much shorter duration for equilibration
is needed from injection point. The length of time to reach equilibrium in the laboratory tests may actually
be greater than residency time of the whole production system.

Effect of Scaling Ion Removal

For the following tests the field brine is mildly scaling under ambient pressure test conditions. In the
laboratory the pH at ambient pressure with a slow stream of 100% CO2 was 5.6. However, in the field as a
result of the higher partial pressure of carbon dioxide, the pH is actually expected to be 5.2. For this field
condition the brine is under saturated with respect to calcium carbonate formation. As scale formation tends
to form protective layers more readily in low-shear laboratory tests, and it is not be expected to form under
field conditions, it is important that scale was not allowed to form during the corrosion inhibitor testing. A
selection of the possible adjustments and the results obtained are summarized in Table 6.
12 SPE-190909-MS

Table 6—Effect on LPR corrosion rates after adjusting CaCO3 scaling-

ion concentrations; 90°C, ambient pressure, 100% CO2, G10180 electrodes.

Corrosion rate after

Brine composition [Ca2+] (mg/l) [HCO3−] (mg/l) pH Saturation Ratio
24 hours (mm/y)

Unadjusted* 5800 260 5.6 4.6 0.5**

[HCO3]− reduced 5800 150 5.3 1.6 2.2**

Ca removed
2+ 0 260 5.8 0 1.5

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOFCS/proceedings-pdf/18OFCS/2-18OFCS/D021S002R003/1241396/spe-190909-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

Ca reduced
2+ 1000 260 5.7 0.9 2.1**

* See Table 2.
** Corrosion rates versus time for these are also shown in Figure 9.

Adjusting the calcium concentration reduces the scaling risk but leaves a pH similar to that of the
unadjusted brine, and therefore is not field-representative. The higher pH should in theory lead to a less
corrosive condition, however the absence of scaling results in a higher corrosion rate than the unadjusted
system. When compared with adjusting the bicarbonate content to lower the scaling tendency (though, it is
still slightly oversaturated), a pH close to the modelled field value for the field is achieved. Again a higher
corrosion rate is observed because of the lack of scale deposition.
A summary of the different adjusted blank tests and in the presence of the Quat is shown in Fig. 9. The
inhibitor concentration in this case was reduced to 5 ppmv to accentuate any differences between systems
investigated.

Figure 9—LPR corrosion rate versus time in presence and absence of 5 ppmv generic quaternary ammonium
inhibitor in scaling and adjusted brines from Table 6, 90°C, ambient pressure, 100% CO2, G10180 electrodes.

Similar performance of the inhibitor is observed in both the adjusted brines, with corrosion rates of
0.13 – 0.14 mm/y achieved at the end the test. When inhibitor was investigated at analogous conditions in
unadjusted brine a slightly lower corrosion rate of around 0.08 mm/y was achieved. If the typical industry
pass criterion was applied here (≤ 0.1 mm/y), then only the unadjusted system would meet this criterion
at this concentration. This means that realistically a higher concentration of corrosion inhibitor would be
needed in the field.
SPE-190909-MS 13

Conclusions
The following key conclusions can be drawn from this work:

• The pre-corrosion duration can impact the corrosion rates obtained in the presence of corrosion
inhibitor. This can also influence the time taken for an effective film to form. Both of these factors
can, potentially change inhibitor ranking and minimum effective dose rates determined.
• The method used to add inhibitor to low shear dual-phase tests can impact the performance
obtained, potentially changing the ranking of chemicals.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOFCS/proceedings-pdf/18OFCS/2-18OFCS/D021S002R003/1241396/spe-190909-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

• The length of time inhibitors are allowed to partition between hydrocarbon and aqueous phase
can have a significant effect. The conditions selected should be representative to the system under
consideration and its history. Too short and equilibrium may not be reached however if too long
the results may not be representative to field conditions.
• Careful consideration is required when adjusting brine systems with a scaling tendency to give
a "conservative approach" with respect to corrosion testing. Different methods of adjustment can
produce different results and can lead to different inferences to be made.
Minor adjustments to the way tests are conducted can have significant effect on CI performance, even
when ideal laboratory test conditions are used. This has the potential to lead to different conclusions and
selections to be made from a CI screening study is It is paramount that appropriate conditions for any test
are selected and as representative as practicable possible. In cases of doubt or uncertainty, a level of prudent
conservatism should be used.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Fiona Ford, Scott Melvin, Nicole Hunter and Kelly Whittingham
for their support with the laboratory testing and analysis for this study.

References
ASTM G102-89 (2015), "Standard Practice for Calculation of Corrosion Rates and Related Information from
Electrochemical Measurements," (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM)
ASTM G1-03 (2011), "Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens," (West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM)
ASTM G5-14, "Standard Reference Test Method for Making Potentiodynamic Anodic Polarization Measurements," (West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM)
ASTM G59-97 (2014), "Standard Test Method for Conducting Potentiodynamic Polarization Resistance
Measurements," (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM)
Dugstad, A., "Formation of Protective Corrosion Films during CO2 Corrosion of Carbon Steel" in "Advances in Corrosion
Control and Materials in Oil and Gas Production", European Federation of Corrosion Publications No 26, Ed.
JackmanS. and Smith,L.M. IOM Communications, 1999
Garber, J. D. et al. "Comparison of Various Test Methods in the Evaluation of CO2 Corrosion Inhibitors for Downhole
and Pipeline Use," CORROSION 94, Paper No 94042 (Houston, TX: NACE International, 1994)
Gulbrandsen, E. et al. "Effect of Precorrosion on the Performance of Inhibitors for CO2 Corrosion of Carbon Steel,"
CORROSION 98, Paper No. 98013 (Houston, TX: NACE International, 1998)
hse.gov.uk (2014) "Reliable corrosion inhibition in the oil and gas industry," RR1023 [online], available at: http://
www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr1023.pdf [Accessed 30th January 2018]
Hu, Y. et al. "Predicted and Observed Evolution of Produced Brine Compositions and Implications for Scale Management,"
SPE Production and Operations, Vol. 31, No 3, p270–279, 2016.
Kapusta, S. D., "Corrosion Inhibitor Testing and Selection for E&P: A User's Perspective," CORROSION 99, Paper No.
99016 (Houston, TX: NACE International, 1999)
Kermani, M. B., and Morshed, A., "Carbon Dioxide Corrosion in Oil and Gas Production – A Compendium,"
CORROSION 03, Vol.59, No.8, p658–683 (Houston, TX: NACE International, 2003)
Kermani, M. B., and Smith, L. M., "CO2 Corrosion Control in Oil and Gas Production," European Federation of Corrosion
Publications No 23, IOM Communications, 1997
14 SPE-190909-MS

Lopez, D. A., Simison, S. N., and De Sanchez, S.R., "Inhibitor Performance in CO2 Corrosion EIS Studies on the
Interaction between their Molecular Structure and Steel Microstructure," Materials and Design, Vol 24, No.1,
p561–575, 2003
McMahon, A. J., and Groves, S., "Corrosion Inhibitor Guidelines (ESR.95.ER.050)," BP, Sunbury, 1995
NACE 1D196, "Laboratory Test Methods for Evaluating Oilfield Corrosion Inhibitors" (Houston, TX, NACE
International)
Paolinelli, L. D., Perez, T., and Simison, S. N., "The Influence of Steel Microstructure, Chemical Composition and Pre-
Corrosion on CO2 Inhibitor Efficiency," CORROSION 07, Paper No 07311 (Houston, TX: NACE International, 2007)
Papavinasam, S., Revie, R. W., and Bartos, M., "Testing Methods and Standards for Oilfield Corrosion Inhibitors"

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOFCS/proceedings-pdf/18OFCS/2-18OFCS/D021S002R003/1241396/spe-190909-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras user on 31 March 2024

CORROSION 04, Paper No 04424 (Houston, TX: NACE International, 2004)
Stalker, R., Graham, G. M., and Simpson, C. M. E., "The Impact of Inorganic Scale Deposits and their Removal on General
CO2 Corrosion Rates and Corrosion Inhibitor Performance," SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Corrosion
2004, Paper No 87554, (Aberdeen, UK: SPE, 2004)
Webster, S. et al., "Corrosion Inhibitor Test Methods (ESR.95.ER.054)," BP, Sunbury, 1996.