Paper No.

10627

Applying Higher C-Values in API RP 14E Erosion Velocity Calculations for Gas
Condensate Wells – A Case Study
1
Hamed Mansoori
National Iranian Oil Company, Iran

ABSTRACT
This paper presents the results of an Iranian Operator's successful trials on enhancing gas well threshold
velocity beyond those recommended by API RP 14E. The API RP standard proposes recommendations
on limiting velocity in tubing and pipelines to avoid or mitigate damage associated with erosion and/or
corrosion. In this Standard, an empirical formula is used to estimate the threshold (erosion) velocity,
beyond which damage would be expected to pipeline networks. In the current work, an oil operator
launched field trials for a safe increase in the threshold velocity of its gas condensate wells. For those
wells whose current production potentials were higher than anticipated, the recommendations in API RP
14E on erosion velocity limits were a considerable obstacle to increased production rates. For a certain
period of time, the selected wells were produced at a higher rate and then the tubing and topside facilities
were examined carefully using a combination of surface and downhole erosion/corrosion monitoring
tools. New higher values for the C-factor in the API RP 14E erosion velocity calculation were achieved
for selected wells and for the future development of the studied field. This work demonstrated the use of
the new C-values in the API RP erosion velocity calculation and their verification by evaluation of field
data.

Keywords: API RP 14E, erosion velocity, production tubing, corrosion, gas well.

INTRODUCTION
Erosion is wear of materials caused by a gas or a liquid that may or may not be associated with abrasion
by entrained solid particles. Erosion is very complicated and slight changes in operational conditions such
as fluid velocity can lead to significant effects on erosion behavior. Potential mechanisms that could
cause significant erosion damage are:
1) Particulate erosion
2) Liquid droplet erosion
3) Vapor bubble erosion
4) Erosion-corrosion
5) Cavitation

1
Current address: Institute for Corrosion & Multiphase Technology, Ohio University, USA
wÓ ÔË æß “ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ú
ŒªØ´ ª≠¨≠ ∫±Æ∞ªÆ ≥ ∑≠≠∑±≤ ¨± ∞´ æ¥∑≠∏¨∏∑≠ ≥ ø≤´ ≠ΩÆ∑∞¨ ∑≤ ø≤ß ∫±Æ≥ Ù∑≤ ∞øÆ̈±Æ∑≤ ©∏±¥ªÙ≥ ´ ≠¨ æª ∑≤ ©Æ ∑¨∑≤ ¨±
“ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ù–´ æ¥∑Ωø¨∑±≤≠ ‹ ∑™∑≠∑±≤ÙÔÎ ËÌ Î –øÆ µ ê≤ –¥øΩªÙÿ ±´ ≠¨±≤Ùê®ø≠ ÈÈ ËÏ Ú
Ã∏ª ≥ ø¨ªÆ ∑ø¥∞ƪ≠ª≤¨ªº ø≤º ¨∏ª ™ ∑ª©≠ ª®∞Æ ª≠≠ªº ∑≤ ¨∏∑≠ ∞ø∞ªÆøÆ ª ≠±¥ª¥ß ¨∏±≠ª ±∫ ¨∏ª ø´ ¨∏±Æ≠˜ ø≤º øÆ ª ≤±¨ ≤ªΩª≠≠øÆ
∑¥ß ª≤º ±Æ
≠ªº æß ¨∏ª fl ≠≠±Ω∑ø¨∑±≤Ú
Ф
 Some years ago, API RP 14E proposed recommendations on limiting velocity in production tubing and
pipelines to avoid or mitigate the damage associated with erosion. In this Standard the following empirical
formula can be used to determine the threshold (erosion) velocity [2]:

„ Ô˜

where:
ve = fluid erosion velocity in feet/second (below this level it is expected that erosion will not occur)
C = empirical constant
= gas/liquid mixture density in lbs/ft3at flowing pressure and temperature

There does not appear to be any hard evidence behind the basis of equation 1 and it is not known who
developed the equation for the first time; however, it is suggested that the API erosion velocity limit may
have been derived using one of the following methods:

a. Constant pressure drop limitation using the Bernoulli relationship

b. Limitation on erosion rate due to liquid impingement
c. Limitation on velocity to avoid removing corrosion inhibitor layers

However, in seeking a basis for the API 14E erosion equation, industry experience to date indicates that
for solids-free fluids, values of C = 100 for continuous service and C = 125 for intermittent service are
conservative. For solids-free fluids where corrosion is not anticipated or when corrosion is controlled by
inhibition or by employing corrosion resistant alloys (CRAs), values of C = 150 to 200 may be used for
continuous service: values up to 250 have been used successfully for intermittent service. If solids
production is anticipated, fluid velocities should be reduced significantly. Different values of “C” may be
used where specific application studies have shown them to be appropriate [3]–[6]. Within the industry,
the simplicity of equation 1 made it popular for primary design and also for operations in oil and gas
production systems. The widespread use of the API 14E erosion formula in the field do not compensate
for its weak points. There are reports of conservatism in API recommendations in pure fluid conditions
as they may not be sufficiently conservative in systems with sand production [4], [7], [8]. However, API
RP14E states clearly that different values of “C” may be used where specific application studies have
shown them to be appropriate. This has led many workers to attempt to define C-factors that can be used
for a number of different circumstances, including for solids-containing duties, different materials, and
different duties (i.e. liquid, gas, or multiphase) [9].
In the current trial on a real gas condensate field located south of Iran, the Parsian Gas Field (PGF), a
production company went beyond the recommendations of API 14E to determine higher values of the C-
factor for use in the erosion formula. PGF is the largest sweet gas condensate reservoir in the Middle
East, located onshore in the southern area of Iran. Table1 shows the gas composition. There were four
wells with production potentials that were higher than expected and these were selected to experience
higher velocities by increasing their production rates. After a period of 6 months of enhanced production
rate, the tubing and wellhead facilities were examined using a combination of surface monitoring tools
and tube caliper surveys to analyze the effect of higher velocity on wall thickness loss and

wÓ ÔË æß “ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ú
ŒªØ´ ª≠¨≠ ∫±Æ∞ªÆ ≥ ∑≠≠∑±≤ ¨± ∞´ æ¥∑≠∏¨∏∑≠ ≥ ø≤´ ≠ΩÆ∑∞¨ ∑≤ ø≤ß ∫±Æ≥ Ù∑≤ ∞øÆ̈±Æ∑≤ ©∏±¥ªÙ≥ ´ ≠¨ æª ∑≤ ©Æ ∑¨∑≤ ¨±
“ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ù–´ æ¥∑Ωø¨∑±≤≠ ‹ ∑™∑≠∑±≤ÙÔÎ ËÌ Î –øÆ µ ê≤ –¥øΩªÙÿ ±´ ≠¨±≤Ùê®ø≠ ÈÈ ËÏ Ú
Ã∏ª ≥ ø¨ªÆ ∑ø¥∞ƪ≠ª≤¨ªº ø≤º ¨∏ª ™ ∑ª©≠ ª®∞Æ ª≠≠ªº ∑≤ ¨∏∑≠ ∞ø∞ªÆøÆ ª ≠±¥ª¥ß ¨∏±≠ª ±∫ ¨∏ª ø´ ¨∏±Æ≠˜ ø≤º øÆ ª ≤±¨ ≤ªΩª≠≠øÆ
∑¥ß ª≤º ±Æ
≠ªº æß ¨∏ª fl ≠≠±Ω∑ø¨∑±≤Ú
У
 erosion/corrosion behavior. A decision then was made to choose a higher but still safe C-factor for use
in the API erosion formula for future wells and for the further development plan.

Table 1. Specifications of the fluid components according to boiling point

Component Mole fraction Density

% (g/cm3)

N2 2.26 0.808
CO2 1.32 0.8152
H2S 0 -
CH4 86.96 0.4069
C2H6 4.95 0.5612
C3H8 1.55 0.5794
C4+ 2.96 0.8712
average molar mass: 19.98 g/cm3

The surface monitoring tools consisted of:

1) Weight-Loss Coupons
2) Electrical Resistance (ER) Probes
3) Non-destructive testing (NDT)
4) Visual inspection of wellhead components
5) A test separator for monitoring of possible sand accumulation

Motivation

The first production from PGF commenced about 12 years ago at the time of this research and the field
development program is still ongoing. Soon after startup of the field, it was decided to investigate the
possibility of enhancing production rate of individual wells based on two major reasons:

1) The alloy steel used for well tubing and flow lines was capable of resisting more
aggressive erosion/corrosion conditions than the current operational conditions would
generate.

2) The production potential of some wells was higher than initially had been designed or
anticipated.

The economic requirements for meeting gas/condensate volume targets would cause more wells to be
drilled on the reservoir during the future development program, which entails high drilling expenses. A
decision to increase the production rate of individual wells can lead to a decrease in the number of wells
in development plan and would bring lower costs for the company. It is very attractive for the company to
enhance production rate of potential wells and to drill fewer wells during future field development. There
are some considerations in this respect:

A. High velocity may lead to tubing failure and consequent shutting down of wells, if the tubing
material cannot resist the shear stress and erosion/corrosion caused by higher velocity.
Additionally, it is very costly to replace damaged tubing, so it is very important to increase
well production rate step-by-step with shorter inspection intervals and frequent wall thickness

wÓ ÔË æß “ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ú
ŒªØ´ ª≠¨≠ ∫±Æ∞ªÆ ≥ ∑≠≠∑±≤ ¨± ∞´ æ¥∑≠∏¨∏∑≠ ≥ ø≤´ ≠ΩÆ∑∞¨ ∑≤ ø≤ß ∫±Æ≥ Ù∑≤ ∞øÆ̈±Æ∑≤ ©∏±¥ªÙ≥ ´ ≠¨ æª ∑≤ ©Æ ∑¨∑≤ ¨±
“ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ù–´ æ¥∑Ωø¨∑±≤≠ ‹ ∑™∑≠∑±≤ÙÔÎ ËÌ Î –øÆ µ ê≤ –¥øΩªÙÿ ±´ ≠¨±≤Ùê®ø≠ ÈÈ ËÏ Ú
Ã∏ª ≥ ø¨ªÆ ∑ø¥∞ƪ≠ª≤¨ªº ø≤º ¨∏ª ™ ∑ª©≠ ª®∞Æ ª≠≠ªº ∑≤ ¨∏∑≠ ∞ø∞ªÆøÆ ª ≠±¥ª¥ß ¨∏±≠ª ±∫ ¨∏ª ø´ ¨∏±Æ≠˜ ø≤º øÆ ª ≤±¨ ≤ªΩª≠≠øÆ
∑¥ß ª≤º ±Æ
≠ªº æß ¨∏ª fl ≠≠±Ω∑ø¨∑±≤Ú
М
 monitoring. It must be noted that erosion/corrosion damage to surface facilities is easier to
recognize and resolve than is damage to down-hole equipment [10]–[14]. Furthermore, repair
and replacement of surface facilities are less expensive than are repairs to down-hole
equipment [15], [16]. In general, high flow velocity in the multiphase condition of oil and gas
well greatly influence flow assurance issues such as erosion/corrosion and gas hydrate [17].

B. Higher production rates may alter the formation and increase sand production. Sand can
affect the erosion rate unexpectedly, so it is essential to monitor the possibility of sand
production during the field trials. Despite the fact that none of the wells selected for higher
velocity were supposed to produce sand, based on core analyses taken from the formation,
it was decided to use a test separator located at the gas gathering manifold for sand
monitoring. If wells tend to produce sand then the test separator is a good place for sand to
settle and be monitored.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
At PGF, the primary well completion design was based on reaching an average individual daily well
production rate of 53 Million Standard Cubic Feet (MMSCF). This value corresponded to a flow velocity
of 37 ft/s in 4.67" ID tubing, typically used in the field. The majority of wells completed by using 5Ѕ " or
4.67 ID tubing with N-80 grade material. The flow lines at wellhead are 6" ID with API 5L X65 material
grade. Table 2 shows a comparison of actual velocity (va), experienced during the trial, and the threshold
erosion velocity (ve), recommended by API. For four selected wells that experienced higher production
rates during the trial than their initial design had anticipated. The production rate varied from 78 to 99
MMSCFD and the actual velocity through tubing varied from 54.7 to 73.7 ft/s. The actual new C-factor
(Ca) was recalculated according to API RP 14E as follows:

„ I Ó˜

Furthermore, the threshold erosion velocity was calculated by the API 14E formula with an assumption
of C = 100 for all wells. The initial design for PGF wells was based on a value of C = 100 in API 14E to
avoid or mitigate erosion to down-hole tubing.
Ô
„ ̘

The mixture densities calculated under the condition of individual wells are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison of actual velocity and API erosion velocity for selected wells

Production Tubing Va Recalculated Recommended

Well rate ID (in) (ft/s) (lb/ft3)
C-factor velocity (Ve;
No (mmscfd) (Ca) ft/s) using
C=100
1 99 4.67 73.68 7.02 195 37.74
2 78 4.67 54.66 7.43 149 36.69
3 85 4.67 60.16 7.36 163 36.86
4 92 4.67 65.97 7.27 178 37.09
Note: for all four wells, va is greater than ve (va>ve)

wÓ ÔË æß “ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ú
ŒªØ´ ª≠¨≠ ∫±Æ∞ªÆ ≥ ∑≠≠∑±≤ ¨± ∞´ æ¥∑≠∏¨∏∑≠ ≥ ø≤´ ≠ΩÆ∑∞¨ ∑≤ ø≤ß ∫±Æ≥ Ù∑≤ ∞øÆ̈±Æ∑≤ ©∏±¥ªÙ≥ ´ ≠¨ æª ∑≤ ©Æ ∑¨∑≤ ¨±
“ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ù–´ æ¥∑Ωø¨∑±≤≠ ‹ ∑™∑≠∑±≤ÙÔÎ ËÌ Î –øÆ µ ê≤ –¥øΩªÙÿ ±´ ≠¨±≤Ùê®ø≠ ÈÈ ËÏ Ú
Ã∏ª ≥ ø¨ªÆ ∑ø¥∞ƪ≠ª≤¨ªº ø≤º ¨∏ª ™ ∑ª©≠ ª®∞Æ ª≠≠ªº ∑≤ ¨∏∑≠ ∞ø∞ªÆøÆ ª ≠±¥ª¥ß ¨∏±≠ª ±∫ ¨∏ª ø´ ¨∏±Æ≠˜ ø≤º øÆ ª ≤±¨ ≤ªΩª≠≠øÆ
∑¥ß ª≤º ±Æ
≠ªº æß ¨∏ª fl ≠≠±Ω∑ø¨∑±≤Ú
П
 In Table 2, Ve indicates the maximum velocity each well was initially allowed to produce hydrocarbon
before the trial, based on C=100. While Va indicates the actual velocity experienced during trial with higher
production rate than the usual operational schedule. As mentioned earlier, the purpose of the trial was to
expose wells to higher velocities than those recommended by API PR 14E and determine the optimum
C-Value. This was achieved by evaluating the downhole and surface infrastructure from erosion/corrosion
standpoints.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Possible erosion/corrosion damages to downhole and surface infrastructure were evaluated during and
after the trial through caliper surveys and corrosion coupon/probe data.
Downhole Monitoring

Caliper surveys are the normal method of obtaining downhole erosion/corrosion information from
production tubing. However, the cost of a survey in terms of hourly rig rates and well downtime dictates
the limited use of this approach. The caliper device records mechanically the internal dimensions of the
tube along a number of independent equally-spaced tracks, providing a three-dimensional profile of the
line. Circumferential erosion/corrosion, trough or line corrosion, isolated pitting and corrosion at the tubing
connection are readily identified [3]. Before commencing the trial, in order to scan the wall thickness in
the entire tubing column of the four selected wells, a caliper survey was performed. After 6 months of
experiencing the higher production rates, another tubing caliper survey was done on each of the wells to
measure the exact wall thickness loss of the tubing. A typical result from the caliper survey for Well No.
1 is presented in
Table 3. The rate of material loss at the top of the tubing was higher than in the lower parts. This is a
consequence of higher velocity and the changing flow regime in the upper portion of the tube. Caliper
logs for every well included many point measurements of tube thickness from top to bottom of the
available depth by means of multi-fingers of the wireline caliper tool. In
Table 3, for every interval, an average rate of wall loss is presented, based on the thickness
measurements before and after the trial. The rate of material loss recorded by the caliper is an average
value over the entire length of a tube, which is calculated for every well.

Table 3. Typical results from caliper survey for Well No. 1

Depth, feet Average Interval, feet

thickness loss
in each
interval, mpy

0 1.5 Top
1000 1.2 1000
2000 1 1000
3000 0.7 1000
4000 0.5 1000

wÓ ÔË æß “ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ú
ŒªØ´ ª≠¨≠ ∫±Æ∞ªÆ ≥ ∑≠≠∑±≤ ¨± ∞´ æ¥∑≠∏¨∏∑≠ ≥ ø≤´ ≠ΩÆ∑∞¨ ∑≤ ø≤ß ∫±Æ≥ Ù∑≤ ∞øÆ̈±Æ∑≤ ©∏±¥ªÙ≥ ´ ≠¨ æª ∑≤ ©Æ ∑¨∑≤ ¨±
“ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ù–´ æ¥∑Ωø¨∑±≤≠ ‹ ∑™∑≠∑±≤ÙÔÎ ËÌ Î –øÆ µ ê≤ –¥øΩªÙÿ ±´ ≠¨±≤Ùê®ø≠ ÈÈ ËÏ Ú
Ã∏ª ≥ ø¨ªÆ ∑ø¥∞ƪ≠ª≤¨ªº ø≤º ¨∏ª ™ ∑ª©≠ ª®∞Æ ª≠≠ªº ∑≤ ¨∏∑≠ ∞ø∞ªÆøÆ ª ≠±¥ª¥ß ¨∏±≠ª ±∫ ¨∏ª ø´ ¨∏±Æ≠˜ ø≤º øÆ ª ≤±¨ ≤ªΩª≠≠øÆ
∑¥ß ª≤º ±Æ
≠ªº æß ¨∏ª fl ≠≠±Ω∑ø¨∑±≤Ú
О
 5000 0.6 1000
6000 no loss 500
6500 no loss 500
7000 no loss 677
7677 no loss Bottom
Note: every interval includes thousands of
measured points

Surface Monitoring

Corrosion Coupon/ER Probe

Corrosion coupons are available from a number of suppliers in many different sizes and configurations.
The size and configuration selected depended on the type of holder being used, line size, and entry
orientation. Special access fittings and devices that allow installation and retrieval under pressure may
require a specific type of coupon. It is usually advantageous to standardize on a few probe and access
fitting sizes to minimize inventories and to eliminate difficulties in preparation and handling [18]. During
the present trial, the weight-loss coupons were 32 mm diameter Ч 3.2 mm thick disc type coupon that
was mounted flush with the inside pipe wall. The aim of electrical resistance probes was like that of
coupons, with the advantage of continuous monitoring of the pipe service condition. The electrical
resistance (ER) probes were disk type sensors similar to the flush weight loss coupons. The coupons
and probes were installed carefully upstream of the wellhead choke, after a swept bend. These corrosion
coupons/probes can provide a fair information about the corrosion behavior of the tubing column inside
the well. Figure 1 shows the location of the installed coupon and probe at one of the wellheads. After 6
months of production, the weight-loss coupons were retrieved and the amount of mass loss was
measured. Figure 2 illustrates a typical weight-loss coupon after the cleaning process in the laboratory.
In order to get reliable results, the data from ER probes was gathered every two months during the trial
with no interruption to the well performance. Results from coupons and probes were compared with those
from the tube caliper survey summarized in Table 4. The caliper results showed a lower rate of thickness
loss, compared to the coupon and probe data. There were two main reasons for this inconsistency:

1) The liquid content of the flowing fluid in the surface facilities is more than in the well column, due
to better conditions for dropping the liquid. A higher content of liquid can cause greater effects on
the rate of material loss from surface coupons and corrosion probes.

2) The location of coupons/probes was immediately after the swept bend of Xmas tree. The flow
turbulency of fluid in this section is higher than in the straight tubing in the well. Turbulence
increases the effects of the erosion-corrosion phenomenon and thus increases the material loss
of the coupons and probes.

Before running the trial, it had been expected that the wall loss rate for Well No. 1 would be higher than
for the other wells, due to its higher production rate. The results collected from caliper survey and
coupons/probes confirmed this. Indeed, the caliper surveys indicated that no severe pitting had occurred
throughout the column of tubing for all of the selected wells and it is estimated tubing life could survive
wÓ ÔË æß “ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ú
ŒªØ´ ª≠¨≠ ∫±Æ∞ªÆ ≥ ∑≠≠∑±≤ ¨± ∞´ æ¥∑≠∏¨∏∑≠ ≥ ø≤´ ≠ΩÆ∑∞¨ ∑≤ ø≤ß ∫±Æ≥ Ù∑≤ ∞øÆ̈±Æ∑≤ ©∏±¥ªÙ≥ ´ ≠¨ æª ∑≤ ©Æ ∑¨∑≤ ¨±
“ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ù–´ æ¥∑Ωø¨∑±≤≠ ‹ ∑™∑≠∑±≤ÙÔÎ ËÌ Î –øÆ µ ê≤ –¥øΩªÙÿ ±´ ≠¨±≤Ùê®ø≠ ÈÈ ËÏ Ú
Ã∏ª ≥ ø¨ªÆ ∑ø¥∞ƪ≠ª≤¨ªº ø≤º ¨∏ª ™ ∑ª©≠ ª®∞Æ ª≠≠ªº ∑≤ ¨∏∑≠ ∞ø∞ªÆøÆ ª ≠±¥ª¥ß ¨∏±≠ª ±∫ ¨∏ª ø´ ¨∏±Æ≠˜ ø≤º øÆ ª ≤±¨ ≤ªΩª≠≠øÆ
∑¥ß ª≤º ±Æ
≠ªº æß ¨∏ª fl ≠≠±Ω∑ø¨∑±≤Ú
Н
 30 years of production for all wells in the current situations. In general, the results from caliper surveys
and coupons/probes showed that material loss of tubing for all wells was within an acceptable range and
therefore no unexpected problem should occur due to higher production rates up to 99 mmscfd, which
corresponded to a velocity of 74 ft/s.

Table 4. Comparison of material loss taken from surface and downhole monitoring tools

Surface monitoring Down-hole monitoring

Productio Rate of material loss,
Well Tubing caliper survey
n rate, MPY
no
mmscfd Rate of
weight-loss Length of
ER probe* material loss,
coupon tubing, ft
MPY**
1 99 4 2.3 1 7677
2 78 3 1.5 0.3 8376
3 85 3.5 1.8 0.5 8376
4 92 3.5 2 0.8 7795

* ER data is an average of three values for every well, which was gathered every
two months during the trial

** Caliper data is an average for the entire column of tubing based on thickness
measurements before and after the trial

Figure 1. A typical gas well showing the location of ER probe and corrosion coupon

wÓ ÔË æß “ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ú
ŒªØ´ ª≠¨≠ ∫±Æ∞ªÆ ≥ ∑≠≠∑±≤ ¨± ∞´ æ¥∑≠∏¨∏∑≠ ≥ ø≤´ ≠ΩÆ∑∞¨ ∑≤ ø≤ß ∫±Æ≥ Ù∑≤ ∞øÆ̈±Æ∑≤ ©∏±¥ªÙ≥ ´ ≠¨ æª ∑≤ ©Æ ∑¨∑≤ ¨±
“ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ù–´ æ¥∑Ωø¨∑±≤≠ ‹ ∑™∑≠∑±≤ÙÔÎ ËÌ Î –øÆ µ ê≤ –¥øΩªÙÿ ±´ ≠¨±≤Ùê®ø≠ ÈÈ ËÏ Ú
Ã∏ª ≥ ø¨ªÆ ∑ø¥∞ƪ≠ª≤¨ªº ø≤º ¨∏ª ™ ∑ª©≠ ª®∞Æ ª≠≠ªº ∑≤ ¨∏∑≠ ∞ø∞ªÆøÆ ª ≠±¥ª¥ß ¨∏±≠ª ±∫ ¨∏ª ø´ ¨∏±Æ≠˜ ø≤º øÆ ª ≤±¨ ≤ªΩª≠≠øÆ
∑¥ß ª≤º ±Æ
≠ªº æß ¨∏ª fl ≠≠±Ω∑ø¨∑±≤Ú
И
 Figure 2. A typical weight-loss coupon, after cleaning in the laboratory, showing general corrosion mechanism

Non-Destructive Test (NDT) and Visual Inspection

During the trial, a regular plan was set to measure the wall thickness at critical points in the surface
facilities by means of NDT ultrasonic thickness probes. The primary limitation of this technique is that it
only checks a limited region of the pipe. Some critical points around swept bends, joint flanges, up- and
down-stream of chokes and on straight pipes were selected and marked for repeat measurements. After
3 months of the trial, results from the ultrasonic test (UT) measurements revealed significant thickness
loss at the swept bends of Well No. 1, and downstream of some chokes. With special attention to such
places, the trial continued to the end. After the trial, upon shutting down the wells to retrieve the coupons,
wellhead facilities such as swept bends, chokes and spools were taken apart for visual inspection. No
unexpected problems were observed except for the swept bend on the well with the highest velocity, and
the “X”-type choke on the well with the lowest gas rate. For the well where its fixed choke valve was “X”-
type, distinctive damage occurred on the inlet/outlet face flanges and inside the body of the choke (see
Figure 3). It must be noted that such failures in these types of fixed choke valves had occurred in some
wells before the trial, but with less intensity.
In the trial, another choke valves, “Y”-type, was used at wellhead facilities. Although there were no
obvious differences in operational conditions for the “X” and “Y” chokes during the trial, “X”-type damages
were quite distinctive (see
Figure 3). One possible reason for the observed damages in “X”-type chokes could be their cylindrical
geometry. In contrast, the “Y” chokes had a conical geometry at the outlet of its body. This characteristic
helped the “Y” chokes to be protected from damage from droplet erosion, erosion-corrosion and perhaps
cavitation, in the case of high volumetric rate through the choke. Studies to improve understanding of the
main reasons for the “X” choke damages are not yet completed at the time of writing this paper. However,
the immediate conclusion is that “X”-type chokes are not suitable for high off-take gas condensate wells.

wÓ ÔË æß “ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ú
ŒªØ´ ª≠¨≠ ∫±Æ∞ªÆ ≥ ∑≠≠∑±≤ ¨± ∞´ æ¥∑≠∏¨∏∑≠ ≥ ø≤´ ≠ΩÆ∑∞¨ ∑≤ ø≤ß ∫±Æ≥ Ù∑≤ ∞øÆ̈±Æ∑≤ ©∏±¥ªÙ≥ ´ ≠¨ æª ∑≤ ©Æ ∑¨∑≤ ¨±
“ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ù–´ æ¥∑Ωø¨∑±≤≠ ‹ ∑™∑≠∑±≤ÙÔÎ ËÌ Î –øÆ µ ê≤ –¥øΩªÙÿ ±´ ≠¨±≤Ùê®ø≠ ÈÈ ËÏ Ú
Ã∏ª ≥ ø¨ªÆ ∑ø¥∞ƪ≠ª≤¨ªº ø≤º ¨∏ª ™ ∑ª©≠ ª®∞Æ ª≠≠ªº ∑≤ ¨∏∑≠ ∞ø∞ªÆøÆ ª ≠±¥ª¥ß ¨∏±≠ª ±∫ ¨∏ª ø´ ¨∏±Æ≠˜ ø≤º øÆ ª ≤±¨ ≤ªΩª≠≠øÆ
∑¥ß ª≤º ±Æ
≠ªº æß ¨∏ª fl ≠≠±Ω∑ø¨∑±≤Ú
Л
 Figure 3. Material removal inside the body of “X”-type choke valve due to erosion mechanisms

Another major damage location in wellhead facilities was observed in the swept bend of Well No. 1.
Figure 4 illustrates a dismantled swept bend from wellhead facilities and the damages inside the pipe.
Well No. 1 had the highest production rate and such damages were expected. The sudden change of
fluid direction at swept bend leads to severe wall thickness loss due to droplet erosion mechanism. The
loss of thickness on this part of the wellhead facilities should not be an obstacle to increasing the
production rate, as it is located on surface and can be monitored regularly. A reasonable insurance
measure is to perform frequent inspections using NDT tools in the case of high well production rates.
Internal coating or the use of a high erosion-corrosion resistant alloy could be another measure in the
case of severe thickness loss at sweet bends. From inspections of the wellhead equipment, it was
revealed that the general destruction issues were droplet erosion on sweet bends and a possible
combination of erosion/corrosion, droplet erosion and cavitation for fixed choke valves, with particular
reference to the “X”-type choke valves.

Figure 4. Dismantled swept bend of Well No. 1, showing wall thickness loss caused by erosion mechanisms

Sand Monitoring

A test separator vessel was located at the gas gathering manifold for sand monitoring during the trial.
Visual inspection of the sand traps after and during the trial indicated that no sand or proppant

wÓ ÔË æß “ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ú
ŒªØ´ ª≠¨≠ ∫±Æ∞ªÆ ≥ ∑≠≠∑±≤ ¨± ∞´ æ¥∑≠∏¨∏∑≠ ≥ ø≤´ ≠ΩÆ∑∞¨ ∑≤ ø≤ß ∫±Æ≥ Ù∑≤ ∞øÆ̈±Æ∑≤ ©∏±¥ªÙ≥ ´ ≠¨ æª ∑≤ ©Æ ∑¨∑≤ ¨±
“ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ù–´ æ¥∑Ωø¨∑±≤≠ ‹ ∑™∑≠∑±≤ÙÔÎ ËÌ Î –øÆ µ ê≤ –¥øΩªÙÿ ±´ ≠¨±≤Ùê®ø≠ ÈÈ ËÏ Ú
Ã∏ª ≥ ø¨ªÆ ∑ø¥∞ƪ≠ª≤¨ªº ø≤º ¨∏ª ™ ∑ª©≠ ª®∞Æ ª≠≠ªº ∑≤ ¨∏∑≠ ∞ø∞ªÆøÆ ª ≠±¥ª¥ß ¨∏±≠ª ±∫ ¨∏ª ø´ ¨∏±Æ≠˜ ø≤º øÆ ª ≤±¨ ≤ªΩª≠≠øÆ
∑¥ß ª≤º ±Æ
≠ªº æß ¨∏ª fl ≠≠±Ω∑ø¨∑±≤Ú
Б
 accumulation had occurred in the separator vessel. Such a result was expected before commencing the
trial, due to results from core analyses of the reservoir integrity.

CONCLUSIONS
The maximum and minimum obtained C-factors (Ca) were 195 and 149, respectively. These
values were well above the assumed value of C = 100 (recommended by API RP 14E) for all
wells at their initial design.
The company concluded that although operating with a maximum flow rate of 99 mmscfd
(corresponding to a C-factor of 195) had no unexpected erosion/corrosion damage to the facilities,
a safe C-value could be an average taken from all four wells, i.e. C=170. This value was selected
for setting the threshold velocity in production tubing for future development of the field.
“X”-type choke valve (with a conical body shape) was not suitable for use in high off-take gas
condensate wells due to its vulnerability to mechanical damages. Indeed, the swept bend’s
components could be vulnerable locations for loss of thickness in the case of high gas production.
The general corrosion damages at the studied field were caused by the erosion-corrosion
phenomenon.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Special thanks to the R&D sector of National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) for supporting this work.

REFERENCES
[1] TЬV NEL Limited, “Erosion in elbows in hydrocarbon production systems: Review document,” Health
Saf. Exec., vol. UK, 2003.
[2] API RP 14E, “Recommended Practice for Design and Installation of Offshore Production Platform
Piping Systems.” API, 1991.
[3] C. J. Houghton and R. V. Westermark, “North Sea Downhole Corrosion: Identifying the Problem;
Implementing the Solutions,” J. Pet. Technol., vol. 35, no. 01, pp. 239–246, Jan. 1983.
[4] M. M. Salama and E. S. Venkatesh, “Evaluation of API RP 14E Erosional Velocity Limitations for
Offshore Gas Wells,” presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, 1983.
[5] J. C. Healy, J. W. Martin, B. S. McLaury, and R. D. Jagroop, “Erosion Study for a 400-MMcf/D
Completion: Cannonball Field, Offshore Trinidad,” SPE Drill. Complet., vol. 25, no. 01, pp. 137–148,
Mar. 2010.
[6] M. M. Salama, “An Alternative to API 14E Erosional Velocity Limits for Sand Laden Fluids,” presented
at the Offshore Technology Conference, 1998.
[7] H. Arabnejad, A. Mansouri, S. A. Shirazi, B. S. McLaury, and others, “Evaluation of Solid Particle
Erosion Equations and Models for Oil and Gas Industry Applications,” in SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 2015.
[8] Y. Sun, E. Babaian-Kibala, S. Hernandez, J. W. Martin, and J. Alvarez, “Design and Operations
Guidelines to Avoid Erosion Problems in Oil and Gas Production Systems - One Operator’s
Approach,” presented at the CORROSION 2006, 2006.
[9] “Recommended practice for design and installation of offshore production platform piping systems.”
RP14E AP-American Petroleum Institute, 1991.
[10] H. Mansoori, R. Mirzaee, F. Esmaeilzadeh, and et al., “Pitting corrosion failure analysis of a wet gas
pipeline,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 82, pp. 16–25, Dec. 2017.

wÓ ÔË æß “ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ú
ŒªØ´ ª≠¨≠ ∫±Æ∞ªÆ ≥ ∑≠≠∑±≤ ¨± ∞´ æ¥∑≠∏¨∏∑≠ ≥ ø≤´ ≠ΩÆ∑∞¨ ∑≤ ø≤ß ∫±Æ≥ Ù∑≤ ∞øÆ̈±Æ∑≤ ©∏±¥ªÙ≥ ´ ≠¨ æª ∑≤ ©Æ ∑¨∑≤ ¨±
“ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ù–´ æ¥∑Ωø¨∑±≤≠ ‹ ∑™∑≠∑±≤ÙÔÎ ËÌ Î –øÆ µ ê≤ –¥øΩªÙÿ ±´ ≠¨±≤Ùê®ø≠ ÈÈ ËÏ Ú
Ã∏ª ≥ ø¨ªÆ ∑ø¥∞ƪ≠ª≤¨ªº ø≤º ¨∏ª ™ ∑ª©≠ ª®∞Æ ª≠≠ªº ∑≤ ¨∏∑≠ ∞ø∞ªÆøÆ ª ≠±¥ª¥ß ¨∏±≠ª ±∫ ¨∏ª ø´ ¨∏±Æ≠˜ ø≤º øÆ ª ≤±¨ ≤ªΩª≠≠øÆ
∑¥ß ª≤º ±Æ
≠ªº æß ¨∏ª fl ≠≠±Ω∑ø¨∑±≤Ú
Ô
 [11] S. N. Smith and R. Pakalapati, “Thirty Years of Downhole Corrosion Experience at Big Escambia
Creek: Corrosion Mechanisms and Inhibition,” presented at the CORROSION 2004, 2004.
[12] H. Mansoori, R. Mirzaee, F. Esmaeelzadeh, and D. Mowla, “Altering CP Criteria Part of Unified Anti-
SCC Approach,” Oil Gas J., vol. 111, no. 12, pp. 88–93, 2013.
[13] J. M. Olivo, B. Brown, S. Nesic, and others, “Modeling of Corrosion Mechanisms in the Presence of
Quaternary Ammonium Chloride and Imidazoline Corrosion Inhibitors,” in CORROSION 2016, 2016.
[14] S. Gao, C. Dong, A. Fu, K. Xiao, and X. Li, “Corrosion behavior of the expandable tubular in formation
water,” Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 149–156, 2015.
[15] H. Mansoori, R. Mirzaee, A. H. Mohammadi, and F. Esmaeelzadeh, “Acid Washes, Oxygenate
Scavengers Work Against Gas Gathering Failures,” OIL GAS J., vol. 111, no. 7, pp. 106–111, 2013.
[16] J.-L. Crolet and M. R. Bonis, “Prediction of the Risks Of CO2 Corrosion in Oil and Gas Wells,” SPE
Prod. Eng., vol. 6, no. 04, pp. 449–453, Nov. 1991.
[17] H. Mansoori, V. Mobedifard, A. M. kouhpeyma, and A. H. Mohammadi, “Study Finds Simulation
Flaws in Multiphase Environment,” Oil Gas J., vol. 112, no. 11, pp. 102–105, 2014.
[18] NACE RP0775, “Preparation, installation, analysis, and interpretation of corrosion coupons in oilfield
operations.” RP0775, NACE Standard, 2005.

wÓ ÔË æß “ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ú
ŒªØ´ ª≠¨≠ ∫±Æ∞ªÆ ≥ ∑≠≠∑±≤ ¨± ∞´ æ¥∑≠∏¨∏∑≠ ≥ ø≤´ ≠ΩÆ∑∞¨ ∑≤ ø≤ß ∫±Æ≥ Ù∑≤ ∞øÆ̈±Æ∑≤ ©∏±¥ªÙ≥ ´ ≠¨ æª ∑≤ ©Æ ∑¨∑≤ ¨±
“ fl › € ◊≤¨ªÆ≤ø¨∑±≤ø¥Ù–´ æ¥∑Ωø¨∑±≤≠ ‹ ∑™∑≠∑±≤ÙÔÎ ËÌ Î –øÆ µ ê≤ –¥øΩªÙÿ ±´ ≠¨±≤Ùê®ø≠ ÈÈ ËÏ Ú
Ã∏ª ≥ ø¨ªÆ ∑ø¥∞ƪ≠ª≤¨ªº ø≤º ¨∏ª ™ ∑ª©≠ ª®∞Æ ª≠≠ªº ∑≤ ¨∏∑≠ ∞ø∞ªÆøÆ ª ≠±¥ª¥ß ¨∏±≠ª ±∫ ¨∏ª ø´ ¨∏±Æ≠˜ ø≤º øÆ ª ≤±¨ ≤ªΩª≠≠øÆ
∑¥ß ª≤º ±Æ
≠ªº æß ¨∏ª fl ≠≠±Ω∑ø¨∑±≤Ú
ФФ
View publication stats