SPE 103922-PP Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment for Multiphase Flow Pipeline Systems

P.G. Puente, SPE, Scandpower PT and C. Collado, Scandpower PT

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper was prepared for presentation at the First International Oil Conference and Exhibition in Mexico held in Cancun, Mexico, 31 August2 September 2006. 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, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract Owners, operators, regulatory entities and nongovernmental agencies focus their attention on pipeline Integrity Management Plans (IMP) to address the safety and reliability of hydrocarbon pipelines as they cross environmentally sensitive areas as well as densely populated areas. IMP includes a base line assessment prioritizing the inspection and remediation of expected sensitive areas. Direct Assessment (DA) along with internal inspection, hydro-test and other equivalent methods to ascertain the condition of the pipeline are used as IMP assessment methodologies. The topic to be covered in this article is Internal Direct Assessment which includes Erosional Velocity (EV) in addition to Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA). This article utilizes the analysis of an offshore gas pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico to identify possible areas susceptible to corrosion. Multiphase flow analysis simulates the characteristics and specific fluid behavior to determine erosional velocity and internal corrosion in pipelines. A multiphase flow simulator will be used to obtain the specific flow characteristics to evaluate EV and ICDA for the above mentioned pipeline system. Internal corrosion is analyzed both as top of the line corrosion and corrosion at the bottom of the line. In addition multiphase flow simulation provides accurate information related to fluids velocity and residence time. The internal corrosion rate can be related to residence time of water and other electrolytes to formulate effective mitigation processes. This process could serve as the basis for a mitigation program and significantly increase the useful life of a pipeline system.

Introduction Among several components of an IMP are methods to directly evaluate a pipeline system internally and determine its integrity. These methods could be internal inspection tools or hydro-testing. In many occasions the availability of internal inspection tools, facilities to launch and receive inspections devices and environmental restrictions do not permit direct internal inspection of the pipelines systems. Additionally, some systems due to the service they provide may not interup service for periods of time necessary to complete an in line inspection. In these and other cases Direct Assessment could be used to determine the pipeline susceptibility to internal corrosion. ICDA is a planned and closed looped process designed to assess the internal integrity of pipeline systems transporting hydrocarbons. The ICDA process described in this article uses existing proven technologies to develop risk-based internal corrosion susceptibility profile for pipeline systems. Once the critical locations have been determine then non-invasive and non-destructive techniques like radiography or ultrasonic thickness measurement could be used to confirm wall thinning; if no corrosion damage exist then other locations along the pipeline are less likely to be corroded. As part of the direct assessment post-process results of the inspection findings and model outputs are compared, and then tuning of the model is done until agreement measured results is reached. In this way the loop is closed and it is ready for a new cycle. Multiphase flow transient modeling allows determination of key flow characteristics to determine the overall riskbased internal corrosion susceptibility profile. Main flow characteristics are profiles for: pressure, temperature, water film velocity, pH, fluid phase velocities, fluid phase superficial velocities, partial pressure of CO2, shear stress between water film and pipeline wall, flow regime indicator, and critical velocity. All the mentioned parameters and additional information from the model is used in determining the probability of corrosion susceptibility at each segment of the pipeline system. It is important to mention that sweet corrosion exists only if a water film is wetting the pipeline wall.

[SPE-103922-PP]

A risk-based internal corrosion profile for a pipeline from the Gulf of Mexico shore to a processing system in Mexico onshore was developed. This pipeline is 65.7 Km in length and transports gas, condensate and water. This pipeline is in the design phase and is estimated to be 36 inch in diameter.

5. Once a site has been exposed installation of corrosion monitoring devices will allow the operator to continue monitoring sites were electrolytes accumulate. 6. Update the Pipeline Integrity Plan and restart the quality cycle at the first step indicated above.

Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment ICDA The objective of ICDA is to identify pipeline segments susceptible to internal corrosion and then perform an internal corrosion hazard assessment on those segments (1). ICDA utilizes existing proven technologies to develop a risk-based internal corrosion susceptibility profile for pipeline systems. The assessment results from the ICDA are utilized to identify specific sites for evaluation of corrosion damages using non-destructive examinations to verify the pipeline integrity. ICDA is a structured process designed to assess the internal integrity of pipelines transporting hydrocarbons. The following steps are recommended to be considered in developing the ICDA process in a Pipeline Integrity Plan; these steps are not limiting and they could change as operating and environmental conditions change. 1. Evaluation of critical inclination angles along the pipeline route where electrolyte substances including water could accumulate. This provides information where potential corrosion activity could develop. 2. Development of multiphase flow models to determine locations of water accumulation. These models should include at least velocities of each phase of the transporting fluids, intensity of corrosion rates, critical velocities to determine erosional velocities, pH and partial pressure of CO2. As the operating conditions change and/or the fluid characteristics change these models should be updated. 3. Develop a risk-based internal corrosion susceptibility profile for the pipeline using the information from the above simulation. Risk is defined as a measure of the likelihood or frequency of an event occurring in combination with the consequences of that event, as:
Risk = (Probability of Failure) x (Consequences of Failure)

Multiphase transient flow model Sophisticated and complex multiphase simulators are used for development of systems flow simulations. Main components of these models are: Pipeline Profile Special attention must be placed in the development of the pipeline profile. This profile should follow the pipeline route as close as possible. There should no be simplifications or grouping of segments and use of equivalent segments. Location of segments prone to corrosion in the model should be as close as possible to the actual pipeline location. Fluid and PVT properties It is important to have the correct fluid composition for hydrocarbons and water. A complete water analysis will provide information of substances dissolved in the water phase especially if it is formation water. Certain ions could precipitate and form films which in turn could partially or totally protect the pipeline wall from corrosion. The fluid properties are calculated within the simulator or interpolated from tables having the fluid properties for a range of pressure and temperatures. If the PVT information is provided by tables, these values should be checked for discontinuities and strange tendencies. It is also important that the simulation process complies with three phase flow mass balance options as well as with water/oil slip. Operating and boundary conditions Operating and boundary flow conditions are important parameters in determining the fluid behavior during simulations. Pressure, temperature, flow rates, watercut and gas oil ratio are parameters required to establish the operating and boundary conditions. Heat transfer profile To properly simulate the heat transfer process, the thickness and the thermal properties of the pipeline components should be described as well as how those materials are distributed along the pipeline profile. This will allow regions to be accurate modeled with insulation, concrete coating, buried or exposed to the environment in each pipeline section. The most advanced simulators are capable to calculate the heat accumulation in the pipe walls as well as heat conduction trough the walls into the surrounding ambient.

4. Examination of critical sites resulting from high risk corrosion evaluation using the models above mentioned. For most onshore pipelines excavation and inspection using non-destructive and noninvasive examination methods (radiography or ultrasonic) are required to assess corrosion at the chosen locations. If the critical locations after inspection indicate that no corrosion damage exists then other locations along the pipeline are less likely to be corroded.

[SPE-103922-PP]

Fscale is the scale protection factor as a function of temperature and partial pressure of CO2 Corrosion rate calculation methods In multiphase flow systems water and CO2 react and attack carbon steel pipelines producing corrosion. This environment does not include presence of H2S. The basic chemical reactions are (2):

Fscale = g (T , PCO 2 )
Norsok The Norsok standards are developed by the Norwegian petroleum industry for protection and safety of offshore and onshore petroleum installations. The Norsok M 506 is a CO2 corrosion rate calculation model. The corrosion rate is estimated as a function of pH, temperature, partial pressure of CO2 and wall shear stress.

CO 2 + H 2 O H 2 CO 3
This reaction dissociates in two steps

H 2 CO3 H + + HCO3 and

HCO
3

+ CO

CR = f ( pH , T ) g (T ) h(PCO 2 , )
Top of the line corrosion TOLC (4) The Norwegian Institute of Energy IFE developed the top of the line corrosion model. This model is limited by the amount of iron that can be dissolved in condensed water:

In a corrosive CO2 environment when the Fe+2 and CO32- are above the solubility limit they combine to form a film of iron carbonate which protects partially the pipe wall from corrosion.

Fe2 + CO3 FeCO3 K (solid )

2

CR = a Rcond C fe (b T )
Rcond is the water condensation rate calculated by the multiphase flow simulator and Cfe is a function of partial pressure of CO2 and temperature.

Corrosion rates in the pipeline segments are calculated using the variables calculated during the simulation process and applying them to well known corrosion models used widely in the industry. These models are De Waard 95 and Norsok for bottom of the pipe corrosion and IFEs of Norway for top of the line corrosion (TOLC) or corrosion caused by water condensation normally located at the 12 oclock position. Both de Waard 95 and Norsok corrosion models are regarded as conservative methods. De Waard 95 (3) The de Waard 95 model was developed by C de Waard et al after intense and numerous experiments in high pressure close loops. The de Waard 95 corrosion rate CR is calculate by:

C fe = f (T , PCO 2 )
Risk-based corrosion susceptibility profile Using the information develop in the multiphase flow simulation a risk-based profile will be created. Based on operational and environmental conditions, it is suggested to determine the total risk profile based in these three characteristics: Residence time of the water film in the pipeline or water in contact with the pipe wall. Presence of stagnant water film and CO2 will produce corrosion and eventually pitting. The water film residence time could be estimated from the water film velocity values from the simulation. Water film residence time can be high, moderate and low, depending on the operational conditions and fluid corrosive properties it is suggest a total of 70% of the total risk be attributed to the effect of stagnant water film in the pipeline. This risk value allocation could change depending on information from non-destructive examination and if available data from internal inspection instruments or smart pigs. Corrosion rate. The corrosion rate developed by de Waard 95 method, which is from experience a little less conservative than the Norsok method, could be used to determine the corrosion rate of each segment of the pipeline. It is assumed that a corrosion allowance is included in sizing the pipeline system. The probability of failure is proportional to the corrosion of maximum allowance. This is a measurement of the corrosion intensity. Risk from

CR = (1 / (1 / Vr + 1 / Vm )) Fscale
Vr is the maximum corrosion rate estimated for the limiting reaction rate as a function of the temperature, partial pressure of CO2 and pH.

Vr = f ((T , pH , Pco 2 )
Vm is the maximum corrosion rate caused at the limiting mass transfer rate as a function of partial pressure of CO2, liquid flow velocity and hydraulic diameter.
0 0 Vm = C Pco 2 U L.8 DH.2

[SPE-103922-PP]

the corrosion rate intensity could amount to 25% of the total risk. Erosional Velocity. Erosional velocity could cause erosion in some pipeline segments and these areas are more susceptible to corrosion. Risk from the erosional velocity could be the remaining 5% of the total risk.

The produced water is estimated to contain 2% molar concentration of bicarbonates and an ionic strength of 1.1 mol/l. Source The source located at the beginning of the pipeline system will inject either 540 or 200 MMscfd at the inlet point. The source temperature will be 86 oF and the watercut will be 0.1. Study Case - Simulation results Two scenarios were simulated for this study case. The first scenario or Case 1 is for the average expected production of 540 MMscfd and the second scenario or Case 2 is for a low production rate of 200 MMscfd.

Study Case - ICDA The study case is for a multiphase pipeline system located in Mexico. This multiphase flow pipeline system is in the design phase. The system comprises a pipeline 65.7 Km in length and 36 inch nominal diameter. The pipeline is located onshore and it is generally buried at a meter. The ICDA process for the study case includes two phases. The first phase is the development of a multiphase transient analysis for two flow scenarios 540 and 200 MMscfd. The second phase is the development of a risk-based corrosion susceptibility profile using the simulations results. Study Case - Multiphase flow Model Case study parameters were input into an OLGA v5 multiphase flow simulator. The main components of this model were: Pipeline Profile The pipeline profile was downloaded from an Auto Cad file. The profile is indicated in Figure 1 and consists of 785 segments. Fluid Properties Fluid composition and properties were modeled using the PVTsim package and the fluid properties were downloaded into a table in a text file .tab type. The SRK equations of state with the Peneloux correction were used to generate the fluid properties. Operating and boundary conditions The operating and boundary conditions for the case study are included in Table 1. Heat transfer The pipeline materials and soil thermal properties are indicated in Table 2. These materials form a wall around the pipe as indicated in Table 3. These elements along the ambient temperature of 71.6 oF are the environment in which the heat transfer process occurs along the pipeline system. Water options The simulation will be modeled including water slip and water flash options. Corrosion module The corrosion module was set to calculate corrosion rates using the Norsok and de Waard 95 models for the bottom pipeline corrosion and for the top of the line corrosion rate using the IFE model.

Case 1 - Production flow rate 540 MMscfd The first case considers an inlet gas volume of 540 MMscfd and a water production volume of 43 STBD per operating information. Upon start-up the pipeline starts from steady state conditions and stabilizes after 30 hours. The simulation was conducted for 120 hours at that time the system is completely in stable conditions. Figure 2 depicts the elevation, pressure and temperature profiles. These profiles provide the pressure and temperature values at 120 hours of the simulation. Figure 3 indicates the partial pressure of CO2, pH and the shear stress between the water film and the pipe wall after 120 hours of simulation. These parameters and liquid velocities are used by the corrosion models to determine the corrosion rate at each section. Figure 4 depicts the water cut or water film in contact with the pipe wall. This curve is taken at 120 hours into the simulation. It is important to mention that the water film start forming at Km post 34. Prior to that location water has been dispersed into the gas phase. Figure 5 indicates the corrosion rate calculated by the de Waard 95 method, the water film velocity and the erosional velocity ratio. All these parameters are the main components in determining the risk-based corrosion susceptibility profile. Part of this profile is included in Table 4.

Case 2 Production flow rate 200 MMscfd Case 2 considers a much lower gas inlet gas volume. The gas inlet volume is 2000 MMscfd and a water production volume of 16 STBD. The system starts from steady state conditions and stabilizes after 50 hours in relation to pressure and temperature. At the 200 MMscfd production level the system experiences formation of many slugs and the liquid delivery volume at the outlet swings constantly as indicated in Figure 6.

[SPE-103922-PP]

Figure 7 depicts the elevation, pressure and temperature profiles. These profiles provide the pressure and temperature values at 120 hours of the simulation. Figure 8 indicates curves for the partial pressure of CO2, pH and the shear stress between the water film and the pipe wall after 120 hours of simulation. These parameters along whit the liquid velocities are used by the corrosion models to determine the corrosion rate at each section. Figure 9 depicts the water cut or water film in contact with the pipe wall. This curve is taken at 120 hours into the simulation. This is an important parameter that shows where the water film is in contact with the pipe wall. The water film is in contact with the wall from the beginning of the pipeline and in some section in the first 7 Km of the pipeline there is no contact of water with the pipe wall because of dispersion of water in the gas phase and flow conditions due to the inclination angle of the pipeline. Figure 10 indicates the corrosion rate calculated by the de Waard 95 method, the water film velocity and the erosional velocity ratio. All these parameters are main components in determining the risk-based corrosion susceptibility profile. Part of this profile is included in Table 5.

Conclusions Understanding of corrosion susceptibility along a pipeline system will allow safe design of pipelines. An accurate understanding of corrosion susceptibility will provide an important tool in designing a corrosion mitigation plan. Operating conditions such as flow rates, delivery pressures and water production significantly alter the corrosion susceptibility profile. Therefore, depending on operational factors the corrosion mitigation plan will need to change. Production water has been in contact with the reservoir rock for long periods of time (centuries) and dissolved electrolytes are important in determining the corrosion rates and susceptibility of pipeline systems. Therefore, water analyses are important for determining corrosion rates. Corrosion occurs in places where an electrolyte is in contact with the pipe wall. Understanding where wet areas and water residence time are among the most important parameters in determining corrosion susceptibility risk along pipeline systems. Multiphase flow models are unique tools which can provide most of the information necessary to develop risk-based corrosion susceptibility profiles. Reference: 1. Perich, W. et al.: Integrated data approach to Pipeline Integrity Management. Pipeline & Gas Journal (October, 2003) 2. Norsveen, M. et al.: Implementation of CO2 corrosion models in OLGA three phase flow code. NACE Paper No. 00048 (Corrosion 2000) 3. de Waard, C. et al.: Influence in liquid flow velocity on CO2 corrosion: a semi-empirical model. (1995). 4. Singer, M. et al.: Top of the line corrosion in presence of acetic acid and carbon dioxide. NACE Paper No 04377 (Corrosion 2004).

Study Case - Risk-based corrosion susceptibility profile A risk-based corrosion susceptibility profile for both scenarios Case 1 and Case 2 were developed following the procedures indicated in the Risk-based corrosion susceptibility profile part of this paper. For each case there are 785 segments. Inclusion of all this segments in the paper will be to long, therefore only a part of these profiles are included for illustrative purposes. A section from Km post 63 to the end of the line is included for discussion. In the risk tables, low and high limit values determines the ranges for which the corrosion risk is consider low, medium or high. Values less than the low limit are considered of low risk (green cells), values between low and high limit are considered medium risk (yellow cells) and values above the high limit are considered high risk. Table 4 includes the risk-based corrosion susceptibility profile for the Case 1 segments. Table 5 includes the segments for the Case 2. Table 6 is a summary and includes the total risk values for both cases.

[SPE-103922-PP]

Tables

Operating and Boundary Conditions Label INLET OUTLET SOURCE-1 Type CLOSED PRESSURE 41.667 M 995.4 PSIG 77 F 80 F
Case 1 - 540 MMscfd - SPE-103922-PP 70% 25% 5% CORR 3 [MM/Y EVR [-] ] (PIPELI Risk Risk (PIPE NE) for for Risk LINE) "EROS Reside Corro for "Corro IONAL nce sion EVR sion VELOC Time rate rate, ITY DE RATIO" WAAR D 95" 0.02 3.11 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.11 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.11 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.11 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.11 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.05 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.00 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 2.99 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 2.99 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 2.99 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 2.99 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.00 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.01 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.00 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.00 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.00 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.00 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.04 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.06 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.06 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.06 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.06 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.06 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.04 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.02 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.02 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.02 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 3.02 0.12 0.25 0.01 0.02 2.87 0.11 0.25 0.01 0.02 1.45 0.06 0.25 0.01 0.02 2.01 0.08 0.25 0.01 0.02 0.25 0.01 -0.37 0.02 0.441 0.665 0.075 0.175 0.025 0.045 100%

Abs. Pos.

Pressure

Tempera ture

GMF

Table 1 Operating and Boundary Conditions

ULW T [M/S] (PIPE LINE) "WAT ER FILM VELO CITY" 0.93 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.63 -0.23 0.541 0.885

Material Label STEEL SOIL Density Conductivity Heat Capacity 0.5E+03 910 J/KG-C 2200 J/KG-C

LENG TH [KM]

Total Outcome Risk

7850 KG/M3 0.5E+02 2100 KG/M3 1.25 W/M-K 0.35 W/M-K

Coating 3 ply 950 KG/M3

Table 2 Material Properties

Wall Label Material Wall thickness 0.79 IN

WALL-1 STEEL

Coating 3 ply 0.06 IN SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL 1 IN 2 IN 4 IN 8 IN 16 IN 9 IN

63.00 63.08 63.17 63.25 63.33 63.42 63.50 63.58 63.67 63.75 63.83 63.92 64.00 64.08 64.17 64.25 64.33 64.42 64.50 64.58 64.67 64.75 64.83 64.92 65.00 65.09 65.17 65.26 65.34 65.42 65.50 65.58 Low limit High limit

15.8% 15.8% 15.8% 15.8% 15.8% 15.6% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% 15.5% 15.7% 15.7% 15.6% 15.6% 15.6% 15.6% 15.5% 15.5% 15.5% 15.5% 14.9% 9.3% 11.5% 5.2% 25.0% 70.0%

Table 3 Pipeline Wall Description

Table 4 Case 1 540 MMscfd -Risk-based Corrosion Susceptibility Profile

[SPE-103922-PP]

LENGT H [KM]

63.00 63.08 63.17 63.25 63.33 63.42 63.50 63.58 63.67 63.75 63.83 63.92 64.00 64.08 64.17 64.25 64.33 64.42 64.50 64.58 64.67 64.75 64.83 64.92 65.00 65.09 65.17 65.26 65.34 65.42 65.50 65.58 Low limit High limit

Case 2 - 200 MMscfd - SPE-103922-PP 70% 25% EVR [-] CORR (PIP 3 ULWT ELIN [MM/Y] [M/S] Risk E) (PIPEL Risk (PIPELI for "ER INE) for NE) Resi OSI "Corro Corr "WATE denc ONA sion osion R FILM e L rate, rate VELOCI Time VEL DE TY" OCIT WAAR Y D 95" RATI O" -0.01 0.23 2.72 0.11 0.09 0.66 0.02 2.72 0.11 0.09 0.66 0.02 2.72 0.11 0.09 0.66 0.02 2.72 0.11 0.09 0.66 0.02 2.72 0.11 0.09 0.66 0.02 1.04 0.04 0.09 0.66 0.02 0.13 0.01 0.10 -0.02 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.10 -0.02 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.10 -0.02 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.10 -0.02 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.10 -0.02 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.10 -0.02 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.10 -0.02 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.10 -0.02 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.10 -0.02 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.10 -0.02 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.10 -0.02 0.23 1.82 0.07 0.10 -0.02 0.23 2.39 0.09 0.09 0.44 0.02 2.39 0.09 0.09 0.44 0.02 2.39 0.09 0.09 0.44 0.02 2.39 0.09 0.09 0.44 0.02 2.39 0.09 0.09 0.44 0.02 0.81 0.03 0.09 0.44 0.02 0.11 0.00 0.10 -0.01 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.10 -0.01 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.10 -0.01 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.10 -0.01 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.10 -0.01 0.23 0.06 0.00 0.10 -0.01 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.70 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.89 0.44 0.67 0.08 0.18

5%

100% LENGTH [KM] 63.000 63.083 63.167 63.250 63.333 63.417 63.500 63.583 63.667 63.750 63.833 63.917 64.000 64.084 64.167 64.250 64.334 64.417 64.500 64.583 64.666 64.749 64.833 64.916 65.000 65.085 65.170 65.255 65.339 65.421 65.500 65.576 65.650

Risk for EVR

Total Outco me Risk

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05

34.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 6.9% 3.4% 24.4% 24.4% 24.4% 24.4% 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 31.0% 33.2% 12.2% 12.2% 12.2% 12.2% 6.0% 3.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.1% 23.8% 70.4% 25.0% 70.0%

Summary Case 1 and Case 2 SPE-103922-PP Total Risk Case 1 540 MMscfd 15.72% 15.83% 15.83% 15.83% 15.83% 15.83% 15.60% 15.38% 15.37% 15.37% 15.37% 15.36% 15.39% 15.42% 15.42% 15.42% 15.41% 15.41% 15.54% 15.65% 15.65% 15.65% 15.65% 15.65% 15.56% 15.48% 15.48% 15.47% 15.47% 14.90% 9.29% 11.51% 5.16%

Total Risk Case 2 200 MMscfd 32.49% 34.51% 13.51% 13.52% 13.52% 13.52% 6.89% 3.35% 24.35% 24.35% 24.35% 24.35% 24.33% 24.31% 24.31% 24.31% 24.31% 24.31% 31.01% 33.19% 12.19% 12.19% 12.19% 12.19% 5.99% 3.23% 24.23% 24.23% 24.23% 24.23% 24.06% 23.80% 70.36%

Table 6 Summary of Case 1 and 2 Risk-based Corrosion Susceptibility Profile.

Table 5 - Case 2 200 MMscfd -Risk-based Corrosion Susceptibility Profile

[SPE-103922-PP]

Figures

Figure 4 Case 1 540 MMscfd Water Film Near the Wall

Figure 1 Pipeline Profile

Figure 5 Case 1 540 MMscfd Corrosion Rate De Waard 95, Water Film Velocity and Erosional Velocity Ratio

Figure 2 Case 1 - 540 MMscfd Elevation, Pressure and Temperature Profile

Figure 6 - Case 2 200 MMscfd Total Liquid Volume Flow at Outlet

Figure 3 Case 1 540 MMscfd Partial Pressure of CO2, pH and Water film-Wall Shear Stress

Figure 7 Case 2 200 MMscfd Elevation, Pressure and Temperature Profile

[SPE-103922-PP]

Figure 8 Case 2 200 MMscfd Partial Pressure of CO2, pH and Water Film-Wall Shear Stress

Figure 9 Case 2 200 MMscfd Water Film near the Wall

Figure 10 Case 2 200 MMscfd - Corrosion Rate De Waard 95, Water Film Velocity and Erosional Velocity Ratio