This paper reviews the development of our company’s CO2 corrosion rate prediction model and highlights some significant differences between it and other models. Topics such as the calculation of pH, the treatment of fugacity, scaling, oil wetting, acetates and hydraulic diameter are discussed in some detail. It discusses the limits, errors and uncertainty associated with the model so that the reader may be able to consider if such models can really be believed. The authors hope that the final conclusion will be that such models can be trusted providing the user understands these limitations.

The further development of such models has been addressed. On this question the authors indicate that model discussed is not perfect and that we would happily change to an alternative providing that clear benefits can be demonstrated.

It is suggested that the future lies in the development of mechanistic models and that the industry collectively, not individually, should address this issue.

Subject
Mechanistic models, Water, Corrosion rate, Predicted corrosion rate, Tools, Acidity, Liquids, Corrosion modeling, Hydraulic equipment, De Waard corrosion model, Liquid velocity, Scaling, Oil
Keywords:
CO2, Carbon, Dioxide, Corrosion, Rate, Prediction, Cassandra
© 2005 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).
2005
Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP)
You do not currently have access to this content.