Ampp 2022 17948

Paper No.
17948
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/amppcorr/proceedings-pdf/AMPP22/3-AMPP22/2725150/ampp-2022-17948.pdf by University of Calgary user on 12 March 2024

Molecular Deep Dive into Oilfield Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion: A Detailed Case Study
of MIC Failure Analysis in an Unconventional Asset
David G. Leach, Wei Wang, Chao Yan, Dillon Mattis, Ron MacLeod, Wei Wei
Chevron Corporation
3901 Briarpark Drive
Houston, Texas, 77042
United States
ABSTRACT
This work details a microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) failure analysis case study for a produced
water pipeline. A pipeline in a shale and tight asset experienced heavy corrosion and ultimate failure
within a 7-month period, with estimated corrosion rate at 161 mils per year (MPY), or 4.1 mm per year
(MMPY). Upon removal by the inspection team, heavy white deposit buildup (a suspected microbial
biofilm) was observed directly associated with the corrosion failure on top of a black scale underlayer.
Detailed assessments were performed using ATP photometry, qPCR speciation, and 16S rRNA gene
sequencing to profile the microbial population present, which was dominated by high -risk anaerobic
microbial strains such as sulfate-reducing bacteria and methanogens. Scale analysis confirmed iron
carbonate and iron sulfides associated with microbial iron metabolism and corrosion, and scanning
electron microscopy explored surface morphology. This study will lay out detailed root cause analysis
and include best practices for MIC diagnosis and recommendations for future prediction and prevention
in oilfield assets.
Key words: biocorrosion, sulfide scale, carbon steel failure, sulfate-reducing bacteria, methanogens
INTRODUCTION
Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) is a key oilfield problem associated with microbial activity,
and can be described as the accelerated corrosion of surfaces (usually concrete or iron/steel) by the
biological action of naturally present or externally introduced microorganisms. MIC incidents can occur
anywhere that a system is exposed to the environment, where microorganisms can enter often via fluid
flow and colonize various surfaces for their own growth. MIC is a persistent concern in practically any
upstream, midstream, or downstream system where water could be present for microorganism
colonization, including topside, subsurface, aerobic (with oxygen), anaerobic (without oxygen), and at
extreme temperatures and salinities.1-2 This includes subsurface reservoir and well tubing, oilfield
separators, fluid pipelines, water dump lines, relief valves, treatment facilities, etc. MIC failures result in
process upsets, loss of containment, lost production opportunities, and increased operati ng expenses.
© 2022 Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of AMPP.
Positions and opinions advanced in this work are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of AMPP. Responsibility for the content of the work lies solely with
the author(s).
1
MIC is a complex issue throughout the oil and gas industry. A diverse population of microbial species are
typically involved (including both bacteria and archaea), enhancing pipe/equipment corrosion by a variety
of mechanisms including but not limited to: H 2S production (souring), biogenic acid production and pH
acidification, and various electrochemical reactions.3 MIC is often divided into two categories. 1) Direct
MIC involves electrochemical degradation of equipment integrity, often by direct uptake of electrons from
metal surfaces by microorganisms (such as iron oxidation/reduction). 2) Indirect MIC can involve multiple
mechanisms such as the production of harmful metabolites by microorganisms (e.g. acids, hydrogen
sulfide) that have subsequent negative effects on equipment integrity, the formation of biofilms with
deposition of cells/biomatter onto metal surfaces, and other metabolic processes that indirectly lead to
corrosion or failures. Especially under anaerobic conditions, sulfate-reducing prokaryotes (SRP),

including sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) and sulfate-reducing archaea (SRA) are particularly bad actors
well known to the industry due to their production of H 2S and contribution to reservoir souring, H 2S-
mediated indirect MIC, and iron sulfide scale formation. 4 Other classes of microorganisms also play large
roles in MIC, including sulfur-oxidizing bacteria (SOB) and various classes of acid-producing bacteria
(APB) that can generate acetic acid, citric acid, or other organic acids associated with MIC. It is well
documented that methanogens can cause significant corrosion of iron from the methanogenic process
and reactions at iron pipe surfaces.5-6 Very recently the micH gene pathway has been identified as a
potential key diagnostic indicator of methanogenic corrosion, allowing identification of methanogen
strains capable of secreting extracellular [NiFe] hydrogenase enzymes that accelerate corrosion.7 Such
a list of 'bad actors’ is inherently incomplete due the complexity of MIC, and the topic remains an area of
significant investigation. Overall, MIC involves a variety of organisms consuming different energy sources
and contributing to multiple microbial corrosion mechanisms.8 This creates a complex community (usually
in the form of a solid sludge or scale-associated biofilm) that enhances local corrosion of critical
production equipment.
In this report, a detailed MIC case study from an unconventional production asset is described. In April
2021, a production facility experienced a corrosion failure incident in a produced water pipe section after
the primary well-head separator (Figure 1).
A B
Sep 2020 Apr 2021

No corrosion 4 days pre-failure
Figure 1: X-ray inspection images of pipeline in service. (A) shows pipe section of interest (red
circle) in good condition during routine inspection in Sep 2020 with 0.195” (0.495 cm) wall
thickness. (B) later inspection days before failure in 2021 showed same pipe section (red box) in
poor condition with wall thickness of 0.101” (0.257 cm) near threads.
X-ray inspection of the produced water line showed no corrosion issues in September 2020 (see Figure
1A). However, upon inspection on April 13, 2021 (Figure 1B), there was significant corrosion and
reduction in pipe thickness, with estimated corrosion rate at 161 mils per year (MPY), or 4.1 mm per year
the author(s).
2
(MMPY). Note that the yellow box in Figure 1B highlights the ‘left-most’ section near the threads, which
upon failure analysis (see Figure 2A) showed the highest levels of deposit growth and corrosion. The
pipe material is ASTM(1) A106 Gr. B carbon steel. The scale/microbial growth associated with the pipe
corrosion and failure is presumed to have occurred over the 7-8 month period between X-ray inspections,
as the pipe appeared in pristine condition during the September inspection. Monitored ATP testing of
produced water for planktonic bacteria levels had remained below concerning levels (typically <100,000
ME/mL), leading to a false sense of security in terms of microbial control. The system was also known to
have significant CO2 levels (~3 mol% or 30,000 ppm in gas phase), with produced water typically at
≥20,000 ppm total dissolved solids (TDS), ~100 ppm sulfate, near neutral pH, and moderate
temperatures (70-100oF, or 21-38oC). Temperature readings were subject to some uncertainty as cooling

may have been allowed before data collection. After failure the corroded pipe section was removed and
immediately shipped with all internal solid deposits intact for detailed root-cause lab analysis, described
herein.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Upon reception approximately 4 days after the produced water line failed and was removed for shipment,
the pipe failure sample was photographed (see Figure 2) and stored at -20oC before microbial and solids
analyses. General analytical methods were as follows:
Sample collection
Deposit samples were removed by physical scraping with a 70% ethanol sterilized spatula from two major
areas/layers visible in the pipe interior: 1) white surface deposits near areas of highest corrosion, and 2)
black underlayer deposits away from highest corrosion areas.
A B Collected
black
solids
Collected
white
solids
Right
Left
Right
Left
Figure 2: Images of failed pipe section as received. (A) Heavily corroded ‘left’ section of A106
Gr. B carbon steel pipe near failed threads is labeled, showing heavy white solid deposits on
top of a black solids underlayer. Separate samples were taken from left -side white surface layer
and right-side black solids layer (B). Removal of white solids surface revealed additional black
underlayer, as well as corroded pipe walls and deep pitting.
(1)
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
the author(s).
3
Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) photometry
Solid subsamples were massed and placed in 2 mL of a cell lysis and ATP extraction buffer for 10 min at
room temperature, vortexing twice. Samples were then centrifuged and 1 mL of supernatant was
removed for dilution and ATP quantification using a standard ATP photometer luciferase assay.
Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)
DNA was extracted from solid samples (~100-200 mg solid used per sample) by microbead beating and

chemical lysis using a soil DNA extraction kit. DNA was purified by the same kit, with inhibitor precipitation
and silica spin columns. Eluted DNA was diluted 1:10 or 1:100 in Tris low-EDTA buffer and used directly
for PCR or stored at -20oC. PCR reactions were run on a standard 96-well thermocycler with assay gene
targets of universal 16S (for total prokaryotes), mcrA (for methanogens), aprA (for sulfate-reducing
prokaryotes), SoxB (for sulfur-oxidizing bacteria), and ITS (for total fungi). All assays used SYBR-green
chemistry, 40-cycle reaction programs, and standard curves generated with dilution series of positive
control DNA.
16S rRNA gene sequencing
Solid samples were submitted for external analysis by an academic partner lab, performing 16S rRNA /
ITS gene sequencing and microbiology database matching for taxonomic classification.
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
Samples were loaded onto aluminum stub sample holders with carbon tape. Samples were placed in a
low vacuum chamber in a scanning electron microscope (SEM) in order to analyze in natural state with
no sample preparation. Imaging of different phases was completed using backscattered electrons which
separates heavier elements from lighter elements, imaged at 7.0 KV and 5000 -20,000X magnification.
Quantitative X-ray diffraction (QXRD)
Due to sample size limitations and the minimum mass requirements of the QXRD instrument used, white
and black layer samples were not able to be separately analyzed but submitted in bulk. For QXRD
analysis, mixed white and black solids (~2g) were homogenized by mortar and pestle grinding and
passed through a 40-mesh screen. The sample powder was solvent washed, further homogenized and
mill ground, and dried before loading into a sample holder and analyzed by QXRD for at least 8 hours.
Quantification of relative weight percentage composition was performed by proprietary software analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Microbial analysis
Upon lab reception of the pipe failure sample, significant corrosion and metal failure could be seen
especially around the pipe threading. Also observed were large amounts of white solid deposits within
the pipe, especially dense near the heavily corroded top section near the failed threads ( Figure 2A). A
thick black scale layer was observed underneath this surface white layer (and visible alone elsewhere in
the pipe, Figure 2B). Separate white and black solid samples were taken for individual tests when
analytical mass requirements allowed. ATP and qPCR microbial analysis yielded strikingly different
results for the solid samples taken from the internal pipe deposits, which are shown in Table 1 and Figure
3 below.
the author(s).
4
Table 1: Summary of qPCR and ATP microbial results. Abbreviations are: sulfate-reducing
prokaryotes (SRP), sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB), sulfate-reducing archaea (SRA), and sulfur-
oxidizing bacteria (SOB). ME = microbial equivalents.
Assay Black deposits White deposits

(ME/mg) (ME/mg)
ATP 2800 ± 200 24,000 ± 1000
(live)
Total Prokaryotes 370,000 ± 140,000 52,000,000 ± 15,000,000
(live+dead)

Methanogens 90,000 ± 36,000 11,000,000 ± 4,000,000
SRP (SRB+SRA) 300 ± 150 74,000 ± 30,000
SOB 200 ± 100 17,000 ± 7000
Total Fungi 310 ± 150 380 ± 190
qPCR prokaryote (bacteria & archaea) speciation

100000000
10000000
Microbial density (ME/mg)
1000000
100000 White
deposits
10000 Black
deposits
1000
100
10
1
Total P Meth SRP SOB Total F
Figure 3: Quantification of microbial DNA present by qPCR speciation. Note that the y-axis scale
bar is in log scale. Total P = prokaryotes, Meth = methanogens, and Total F = fungi.
Both solid samples obtained from the pipe interior tested high for total microbial content by qPCR, with
small numbers of live organisms estimated by ATP. For black deposits from pipe right-side, ATP tests
yielded a mean live microbial equivalent (ME) count of 2800 ME/mg, and qPCR yielded a live+dead count
of 370,000 (or 10 5) ME/mg total prokaryotes. Significantly, the white deposits from pipe left-side (near
threads) yielded a mean live count of 24,000 ME/mg by ATP, and a live+dead count of 52,000,000 (or
107) ME/mg by qPCR (a severely high microbial load). The white solid deposits clearly contained dense
microbial activity, likely in the form of a surface biofilm mixed with inorganic scale precipitates. It is also
clear the white deposits sampled directly adjacent to the worst corrosion (and which were necessarily
combined with some amount of the ubiquitous black underlayer) contained a much higher density of
sulfate-reducing prokaryotes, methanogens, and sulfur oxidizing bacteria (SOB) than the black deposits
sampled away from the main corrosion area. Speciation by metabolic gene targeting assays showed
with methanogen counts of 11,000,000 ME/mg (white solid) vs. 90,000 ME/mg (black solid), SRP counts
of 74,000 (white) vs. 300 (black), and SOB counts of 17,000 (white) vs. 200 (black). Methanogens, SRP,
the author(s).
5
and SOB each play a role in the complex processes that contribute to MIC (including H 2S production, pH
acidification, iron oxidation/reduction, etc). These results strongly suggested a system subjected to
uncontrolled microbial growth and high MIC risk organism activity. To dig deeper into the microbiome
present, 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed on sample subsets (Table 2 and Figure 4).
Table 2: Top eight most prevalent microbial genera and their metabolic classes, determined by
16S rRNA gene sequencing.
Black deposit White deposit

Unique Identifier Relative Metabolic Unique Identifier Relative Metabolic

(taxonomic name) % Class (taxonomic name) % Class
OTU-008610 13.9 Methanogen DQ647104.1.1495 9.1 APB
(Methanothermobacter) (Thermovirga)
OTU-001116 10.9 Methanogen GU179660.1.1409 6.9 SRB
(Methanothermobacter) (Desulfomicrobium)
LT608329.272087.273564 9.1 Methanogen OTU-001173 6.6 APB
(Methanothermobacter) (Thermovirga)
OTU-031575 6.0 Methanogen OTU-008610 4.7 Methanogen
(Methanothermobacter) (Methanothermobacter)
OTU-088098 5.9 Methanogen AY464939.1.1518 4.6 SRB
(Methanothermobacter) (Desulfomicrobium)
KJ511878.1.1377 3.0 Methanogen OTU-001116 3.8 Methanogen
(Methanothermobacter) (Methanothermobacter)
CP001734.1976777.1978319 2.8 SRB LT608329.272087.273564 3.5 Methanogen
(Desulfohalobium) (Methanothermobacter)
DQ647104.1.1495 2.1 APB OTU-088098 2.4 Methanogen
(Thermovirga) (Methanothermobacter)
1.2% 0.2% 1.5% 2.0% 0.4%

A 0.1% B
Total Meth
7.7%
Total APB 20.7%

10.8%
Total SRB 40.1%
Other
80.0%
Total IOB 35.3%
Total SOB
Black deposit NGS White deposit NGS
Figure 4: 16S rRNA gene sequencing population breakdown of metabolic classes of 127 most
prevalent microbial species detected. Abbreviations are: methanogens (Meth), acid-producing
bacteria (APB), sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB), iron-oxidizing bacteria (IOB), and sulfur-
oxidizing bacteria (SOB).
the author(s).
6
The sequencing results confirmed high MIC risk genera were present in both samples from the internal
pipe deposits (Table 2), and as suspected all the microbial genera detected in the solid samples (over
99.9%) were anaerobic, which was consistent with the low O 2 high CO2 field environment. This also
supported the relatively high qPCR total prokaryote ME/mg quantification counts (estimating total
live+dead) vs. much lower ATP live counts, suggesting much of the microbial population had died
between field collection, exposure to oxygen during transit, and final lab testing. Low ATP results could
also have indicated a primarily dormant (metabolically inactive) population upon lab reception. The
population in the black solids was primarily dominated by methanogens, specifically
Methanothermobacter which is an anaerobic genus that prefers warm temperatures and metabolizes
hydrogen and CO 2 to produce methane, and has been implicated in iron metabolism and associated with

oilfield MIC failures.9-11 Sequencing of white biofilm deposits showed a higher risk MIC population mix
with significantly larger percentages of sulfate reducers (SRB) and acid producers (APB), as well as the
ubiquitous methanogen archaea. SRB identified included members of Desulfohalobium (1% total relative
abundance), Desulfomicrobium (12.8%), Halanaerobium (0.9%), and Desulfitibacter (2.7%), which are
anaerobic and halophilic, and either sulfate, sulfite, or thiosulfate reducing for biogenic H 2S production.
Anaerobic organic acid producers (APB) identified included members of Thermovirga (20.9%),
Thermoanaerobacteraceae (8.4%), and Ruminococcaceae (4.5%). As shown in Figure 4 relative
abundance charts, black deposits (Figure 4A) contained primarily methanogen strains (80%), with
significant APB and SRB populations. White deposits sampled near corrosion failure location ( Figure
4B) contained significantly greater percent of APB and SRB than black deposits, as well as a large
population of similar methanogens. Also present were larger populations of sulfur oxidizing (SOB) and
iron/metal oxidizing (IOB) genera in the white deposits, though at much smaller levels than the dominant
acid-producing, sulfate-reducing, or methanogenic populations.
These results provided further supporting evidence that the pipe sample was at severe risk for MIC,
especially in areas shown by the white biofilm/scale deposits where the highest corrosion to the pipe was
observed. From the observed population and speed of corrosion over the 7-month field period, there is a
high likelihood that direct and indirect MIC mechanisms were both occurring, especially electrochemical
‘EMIC.’ While levels of certain species (such as H 2) were not measured in the system, possible additional
electron donors that may have been contributing to EMIC processes were acetic acid (ranging from 75-
210 ppm), propionic acid (5-30 ppm), and glycolic acid (4-10 ppm). While other corrosion mechanisms
are likely always present, such as CO2 corrosion, MIC undoubtedly played a large role. It should also be
noted that in both qPCR and 16S sequencing data, similar (though less abundant) bacteria/archaea
genetic markers were detected in the black solids more distanced from the main corrosion areas covered
with white deposits. This suggests a useful monitoring opportunity where distanced solids not directly
associated with MIC biofilms can be sampled and analyzed (possibly at more convenient sampling points,
such as strategically placed corrosion coupons) to diagnose active MIC growths in the greater system,
instead of requiring direct sampling of highest severity areas.
Surface imaging by SEM
SEM images for white and black samples are shown in Figure 5, where intact bacteria cells of different
morphology and number can be seen (noted in white boxes). Figure 5A shows an SEM image of the
black deposits, with clearly observable short rod-like bacteria cell bodies embedded in scale solids. While
showing a microbial presence, the black solids have a surface morphology that clearly appears different
from the ‘fluffy’ white solids shown in Figure 5B, with 5A showing fan/blade-like scale morphology
suggestive of iron sulfides (FeS) confirmed by QXRD results that follow. For white deposits (Figure 5B),
bacteria cell bodies of different sizes and shapes can be seen, along with a bulk appearance of
amorphous ‘fluffy’ solids. Such solids morphology may represent a primarily dead microbial biofilm mixed
with inorganic scale. Living biofilms typically appear as a dense layer of microbial cell bodies with
connecting extracellular matrix, but upon death and desiccation cells will lyse and collapse. In this case
where most cells likely died upon exposure to oxygen, dehydration and collapse over time has been
the author(s).
7
observed to lead to surface morphologies similar to Figure 5B, where SEM images were taken
approximately 2 weeks after field collection. Such a desiccation or lysis process of course still leaves
behind nucleic acids that can be detected by molecular methods used in this study.
A B

Figure 5: Representative SEM image of surface of black deposits (A), and white deposits (B),
with examples of intact bacteria cells noted in white boxes.
Scale analysis
While sample mass limitations prevented individual layer scale analyses, QXRD (Figure 6) on a
homogenized sample of mixed white and black solids (after solvent wash and organic component
removal) confirmed that the primary scale composition (69 wt.%) was siderite, or FeCO 3, an iron
carbonate often formed from iron cations reacting with CO2 or catalyzed by local microbial activity. This
suggests a possible combination of MIC and CO 2 corrosion occurring simultaneously; initial MIC of the
iron pipe walls could have led to free iron cations that reacted with CO2, forming iron-carbonate scale
precipitates that further support MIC localization, biofilm retention, and under-deposit growth. CO2 levels
were known to fluctuate, but at minimum be in the hundreds of ppm dissolved CO2 range. QXRD also
confirmed the second most common scale minerology (18 wt.%) was the iron sulfide mackinawite (FeS),
often formed by the activity of sulfate-reducing prokaryotes (SRP) within a MIC community, as microbial-
generated H2S reacts with iron cations resulting in the black deposits observed. While multiple scale
formation mechanisms may be present, FeS (iron sulfide) is a known byproduct of SRP microbial
activity,12-13 and even enhanced Fe(CO 3) formation has been associated with microbial acid production
and iron metabolism. 14-15 Siderite can be one of the main precipitates from microbial iron redox reactions,
and has been reported to occur in “close juxtaposition within a biofilm.” 16 Bacterial growth and biofilm
formation can provide an ‘anchoring’ or nucleation point for scales to form (and vice versa), together
quickly exacerbating production chemistry and flow assurance issues.
Acid drop tests were performed on the top white deposit layer as a check for reactive surface carbonates.
HCl (37% w/w) drop tests directly on the white deposit surfaces showed no visible reaction or bubbling
even after 1 hr, supporting the hypothesis that the surface solids were not a reactive carbonate such as
calcite or dolomite, but likely an organic or biofilm layer mixed with scales not immediately reactive to
acid. Such surface scales would likely be quartz (5% of total inorganic content as identified by QXRD) or
the author(s).
8
siderite (69% of total inorganic content), with quartz known to be unreactive to HCl and siderite known to
only slowly react. However, siderite rarely appears as a starkly white mineral, especially after prolonged
exposure to oxygen, further substantiating the hypothesis that the white surface deposits represented a
microbial biofilm layer.
QXRD Minerological analysis

80
Siderite
70

Weight Percent (wt %)
60
50
40
30
Mackinawite
20
Quartz Calcite Corundum
10
Carbon
0
Fe(CO3) FeS SiO2 CaCO3 Al2O3 C
Figure 6: Quantitative X-ray diffraction (QXRD) analysis of mixed black/white scale solids. Note:
QXRD has difficulty identifying amorphous solids present (e.g. biological components).
CONCLUSIONS
Scale and MIC often go hand-in-hand, with scale providing protection for microorganisms, and microbial
growth/biofilms providing a nucleation site and favorable fluid chemistry (e.g. corrosion by -products) that
accelerate scale deposition/precipitation. In this case study of a produced water pipeline corrosion failure,
supporting lines of investigation provided multiple diagnostic hallmarks for MIC causing the failure and
associated operation downtime and repair costs. QXRD confirmed solid scale composition was primarily
FeCO3 (siderite) and FeS (mackinawite), scales often associated with microbial activity and iron corrosion
and precipitation. qPCR microbial speciation and 16S rRNA sequencing showed high MIC risk organisms
were both present and in very high abundance, including sulfate-reducing prokaryotes, organic acid-
producing bacteria, methanogens, and sulfur-oxidizing bacteria, all capable of accelerating iron corrosion
by various mechanisms. Combined with the dominant presence of iron carbonate and iron sulfide scales,
and SEM imaging showing embedded cell bodies and surface morphology suggestive of a desiccated
biofilm, the results of this study strongly suggest that the pipeline’s failure was a result of scale-associated
biofilm MIC combined with high CO 2 levels. These results also suggest that scale deposits (whether
enhanced by microbial activity or formed due to oversaturated produced water) likely provided footholds
for development of even more severe MIC. For ongoing mitigation efforts to reduce failure-associated
costs, it was recommended to take an integrated chemistry approach to control both MIC and scale ,
including reviewing water chemistry operating conditions, revising field microbial monitoring programs
(especially considering the failure of standard ATP monitoring), and optimizing production chemical
programs, such as biocides, scale and corrosion inhibitors, and iron chelators. In future work we plan to
further characterize the surface morphology and elemental chemistry of the solids obtained from this MIC
failure using microscopy and spectroscopy, as well as investigate remediation methods and the influence
of water chemistry on the organic/inorganic deposits associated with such failures.
the author(s).
9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to especially acknowledge Greg Walker and Paul Hart from Chevron Technical
Center for their expertise and support performing QXRD and SEM analysis, and University of Houston
Sequencing Core.
REFERENCES
1. A. Ibrahim, K. Hawboldt, C. Bottaro, F. Khan, “Review and analysis of microbiologically influenced

corrosion: the chemical environment in oil and gas facilities,” Corros. Eng. Sci. Techn. 53, 8 (2018): pp.
549-563.
2. T.L. Skovhus, E.S. Andersen, E. Hillier, "Management of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

in Risk-Based Inspection Analysis." SPE Prod & Oper 33, (2018): pp. 121-130.
3. N. Kip, J. van Veen, “The dual role of microbes in corrosion.” ISME J 9, (2015): pp. 542-551.
4. D. Enning, J. Garrelfs, “Corrosion of Iron by Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria: New Views of an Old

Problem,” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80, 4 (2014).
5. J. Mand, H.S. Park, T.R. Jack, G. Voordouw, “The role of acetogens in microbially influenced
corrosion of steel.” Front Microbiol. 5, 268 (2014).
6. H. Dinh, J. Kuever, M. Mußmann, et al. “Iron corrosion by novel anaerobic microorganisms.”

Nature 427, (2004): pp. 829-832.
7. S. Lahme, J. Mand, J. Longwell, R. Smith, D. Enning, “Severe corrosion of carbon steel in oil
field produced water can be linked to methanogenic archaea containing a special type of [NiFe]
hydrogenase,” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 87, 3 (2021): e01819-20.
8. B.J. Little, J.S. Lee, “Microbiologically influenced corrosion: an update,” International Materials
Reviews, 59:7, (2014): pp. 384-393.
9. Yamada, C., et al. “Reduction of Fe(III) oxides by phylogenetically and physiologically diverse
thermophilic methanogens.” FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 89, 3, (2014): pp. 637-645.
10. Zhang, J., et al. “Microbial reduction of Fe(III) in smectite minerals by thermophilic methanogen
Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 106, (2013): pp. 203-
215.
11. Tidwell, T., Broussard, Z. “Methanogens and MIC: Leveraging Bioinformatics to Expose an
Underappreciated Corrosive Threat to the Oil and Gas Industry.” Microbial Bioinformatics in the Oil and
Gas Industry: Applications to Reservoirs and Processes (1st ed.) , edited by Wunch, K., Stipaničev, M.,
Frenzel, M. CRC Press, 2021, pp 137-167.
12. A. Picard, A. Gartman, D.R. Clarke, P.R. Girguis, “Sulfate-reducing bacteria influence the
nucleation and growth of mackinawite and greigite.” Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac., 220, (2018): pp. 367-
384.
13. J.S. Berg, A. Duverger, L. Cordier, et al. “Rapid pyritization in the presence of a sulfur/sulfate-
reducing bacterial consortium.” Sci. Rep. 10, (2020): p. 8264.
the author(s).
10
14. M. Sánchez-Román, D. Fernández-Remolar, R. Amils, et al. “Microbial mediated formation of
Fe-carbonate minerals under extreme acidic conditions.” Sci Rep 4, (2014): p. 4767.
15. M. Sánchez-Román, D. Fernández-Remolar, V. Parro, R. Amils, “Nucleation of Fe-rich

phosphates and carbonates on microbial cells and exopolymeric substances. ” Front. Microbiol, 22,
(2015).
16. D.A. Brown, S.E. Kesler, H. Ohmoto, “Microbial mediation of iron mobilization and deposition in
iron formations since the early Precambrian.” Evolution of early earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere, and

biosphere: constraints from ore deposits, Vol 198, Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America, 2006,
pp. 239-256.
the author(s).
11

Ampp 2022 17948

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ampp 2022 17948

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ampp 2022 17948

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper No.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/amppcorr/proceedings-pdf/AMPP22/3-AMPP22/2725150/ampp-2022-17948.pdf by University of Calgary user on 12 March 2024

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/amppcorr/proceedings-pdf/AMPP22/3-AMPP22/2725150/ampp-2022-17948.pdf by University of Calgary user on 12 March 2024

Sep 2020 Apr 2021

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/amppcorr/proceedings-pdf/AMPP22/3-AMPP22/2725150/ampp-2022-17948.pdf by University of Calgary user on 12 March 2024

Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/amppcorr/proceedings-pdf/AMPP22/3-AMPP22/2725150/ampp-2022-17948.pdf by University of Calgary user on 12 March 2024

16S rRNA gene sequencing

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

Quantitative X-ray diffraction (QXRD)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Assay Black deposits White deposits

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/amppcorr/proceedings-pdf/AMPP22/3-AMPP22/2725150/ampp-2022-17948.pdf by University of Calgary user on 12 March 2024

qPCR prokaryote (bacteria & archaea) speciation

Black deposit White deposit

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/amppcorr/proceedings-pdf/AMPP22/3-AMPP22/2725150/ampp-2022-17948.pdf by University of Calgary user on 12 March 2024

1.2% 0.2% 1.5% 2.0% 0.4%

Total APB 20.7%

Black deposit NGS White deposit NGS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/amppcorr/proceedings-pdf/AMPP22/3-AMPP22/2725150/ampp-2022-17948.pdf by University of Calgary user on 12 March 2024

Surface imaging by SEM

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/amppcorr/proceedings-pdf/AMPP22/3-AMPP22/2725150/ampp-2022-17948.pdf by University of Calgary user on 12 March 2024

QXRD Minerological analysis

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/amppcorr/proceedings-pdf/AMPP22/3-AMPP22/2725150/ampp-2022-17948.pdf by University of Calgary user on 12 March 2024

1. A. Ibrahim, K. Hawboldt, C. Bottaro, F. Khan, “Review and analysis of microbiologically influenced

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/amppcorr/proceedings-pdf/AMPP22/3-AMPP22/2725150/ampp-2022-17948.pdf by University of Calgary user on 12 March 2024

2. T.L. Skovhus, E.S. Andersen, E. Hillier, "Management of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

4. D. Enning, J. Garrelfs, “Corrosion of Iron by Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria: New Views of an Old

6. H. Dinh, J. Kuever, M. Mußmann, et al. “Iron corrosion by novel anaerobic microorganisms.”

15. M. Sánchez-Román, D. Fernández-Remolar, V. Parro, R. Amils, “Nucleation of Fe-rich

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/amppcorr/proceedings-pdf/AMPP22/3-AMPP22/2725150/ampp-2022-17948.pdf by University of Calgary user on 12 March 2024

You might also like