SPE 97590

Selection and Qualification of Materials for HPHT Wells

J.K. Brownlee, P.E. SPE, K.O. Flesner, P.E., and K.R. Riggs P.E., PhD, Stress Engineering Services, Inc.; B. P. Miglin,
Shell Global Solutions US Inc.

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

present. Therefore, this review also examines the limitations
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE High Pressure-High Temperature Sour of current CRA test methods and identifies gaps in materials
Well Design Applied Technology Workshop held in The Woodlands, Texas, U.S.A., 17-19 May
2005. property data that is likely to be required if advanced design
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
methods for critical well equipment are to be successful.
information contained in a proposal 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 High bottomhole pressures in HPHT wells are likely to result
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
in a need to use large-diameter, heavy-wall tubing strings.
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper Thick, large diameter CRA tubes are generally limited to short
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 lengths, which results in an economic trade off between the
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
increased gas production that can be achieved by using large
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. diameter tubing and greater completion costs that result from
more connections and longer completion times. Thus, this
Abstract paper will also examine size and strength ranges of CRA
Interest in sour, high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) wells tubulars that are currently available, and these ranges will be
and in ultra-HPHT wells, i.e. those with bottom hole compared with the anticipated needs of HPHT well owners
temperatures greater than about 300° F (150° C) and wellhead and operators to identify whether critical gaps exist in current
pressures greater than about 10,000 psig (690 bar), is CRA manufacturing technology.
increasing worldwide. Due to the desire to monetize reserves
more rapidly and due to the aggressiveness of sour, HPHT and Introduction
ultra-HPHT environments, these wells are likely be completed Figure 1(1) shows some of the high pressure, high temperature
using large diameter casing and tubing that is manufactured (HPHT) and ultra-HPHT fields that have been exploited since
from solid, high-strength corrosion resistant alloys (CRAs). the mid 1980s. In addition to prodigious amounts of natural
Wellheads will likely be manufactured from high strength low gas, crude oil, and condensates produced by these fields, many
alloy steel that is clad internally with CRAs. of the wells in these fields produced or continue to produce
significant concentrations of acid gases carbon dioxide (CO2)
The combination of corrosion resistance and strength offered and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and concentrated chloride brines.
by solid CRAs and CRA-clad steels has spurred decisions to As a result, many HPHT produced fluids can be highly
produce otherwise uneconomic sour, HPHT and ultra-HPHT corrosive or aggressive, and this trend is expected to continue
wells around the world for several decades now. However, and possibly to increase into the future. Therefore, as they did
current levels of conservatism in materials selection and in the past, decisions to drill, complete, and produce HPHT
evaluation and in design of HPHT well equipment is not likely wells are likely to bring about a renewed need to evaluate
to be sustainable in the future. Thus, this paper provides a equipment that is manufactured from solid corrosion resistant
review of the knowledge gained from previous HPHT alloys (CRAs) or low alloy steels that are clad with CRA.
developments with the dual aims of extending the safe and
successful development record of the E&P industry related to The need for HPHT equipment with higher working pressure
HPHT wells and improving the cost-effectiveness of future and temperature ranges is expected to have significant impact
CRA completion designs. in the areas of equipment design and operation; and some of
these impacts are discussed in a sister paper(2). To briefly
Increasingly aggressive conditions are beginning to expose summarize that paper, the linear elastic design verification
limitations in current design methodologies for tubing and required by industry standards such as API 6A, 16A, 16C,and
casing strings, connections, seals, downhole jewelry, and 17D, use the methodologies of the ASME Boiler and Pressure
valves. Linear elastic design methodologies are likely to be Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2 (ASME VIII-2)(3). The
supplanted by elastic-plastic, fatigue, and fracture mechanics design verification methods currently in these standards are
based methodologies in the near future, and this will likely not suited for HPHT equipment. That paper recommends that
result in a need for detailed data related to CRA materials the design verification of HPHT equipment be done by the
properties including flow stress, fracture toughness, and low- fracture mechanics-based methods of Section VIII, Division 3
cycle fatigue resistance, data that is largely nonexistent at of the Code (ASME VIII-3)(4), which were developed to
2 SPE 97590

ensure the safety of pressure vessels that operate at pressures • Environmentally-assisted cracking (EAC)
greater than 10,000 psig (690 bar) with no upper limit on
pressure. (As used herein, the term EAC includes sulfide stress cracking
(SSC), stress corrosion cracking (SCC), and other cracking
ASME VIII-3 is based on the fact that true high pressure phenomena.)
vessels usually fail as a result of cyclic loading, which causes
propagation of cracks from existing defects or discontinuities Table 1 shows a partial listing of the CRAs that have been
leading to eventual fracture. Thus, designers who utilize successfully used for existing HPHT and ultra-HPHT wells.
ASME VIII-3 will need to possess detailed knowledge of These same materials are likely to be used in future HPHT
materials properties such as yield strength, fracture toughness, wells. Furthermore, industry’s experience with these alloys,
and fatigue resistance in the environments of interest. which is largely embodied in NACE MR0175/ISO 15156(6)
Although there are exceptions, in large measure, the indicates that their performance in new HPHT wells will
methodologies that are currently used to select and qualify continue to be governed by:
CRAs do not address these issues. Neither do current test
methods provide designers and materials engineers with the • The in situ pH and chloride concentration of the
data they need. Therefore, the need for HPHT equipment is produced water phase,
also likely to spur new developments in materials selection, • The H2S, elemental sulfur (S0), and CO2
testing, and qualification. concentrations of the produced fluids, and the
• The temperature of the produced fluids.
Basic Materials Selection
Despite criticisms aimed at the expense and conservatism of (If any dissolved oxygen that is introduced into the well as by
many past HPHT and ultra-HPHT completions, the reliability injected water or chemicals is not reduced completely
and safety provided to operators by the materials that were downhole, it may also significantly affect the performance of
selected for these applications is such that a conservative CRAs.)
approach to materials selection is largely validated. However,
due to the potential of relatively small recovered volumes Table 1. Partial Listing of CRAs for Sour HPHT Wells
from many recently discovered HPHT fields, the current level Tubing and Casing Downhole Jewelry Springs
of conservatism may not be economically sustainable in the 13Cr F6NM MP35N
future. Therefore, additional attention will have to be paid to Super 13Cr Alloy 718 Elgiloy
life-cycle cost analysis to ensure that capital is not expended 15Cr Alloy 925
22Cr Duplex Alloy 725
unnecessarily. 25Cr Duplex Alloy 625PH
Alloy 28
Generally, materials selection by life cycle cost analysis Alloy 825
involves developing a list of materials that are available to Alloy 2535
manufacturers and fabricators in the required product forms Alloy 2550
Alloy G3
and that are likely to perform acceptably in a given application Alloy G50
or environment. See documents such as NACE MR0175/ISO Alloy C276
15156(5) for more information. This step will be followed by
selecting the most cost effective alternative based upon Several additional compilations of articles dealing solely or
estimates of life cycle cost. Life cycle cost estimating may partly with corrosion and cracking of CRAs in HPHT
include consideration of risk by the individual or management. environments have been assembled. (7-11). The available data
indicates that, in general, the corrosion rates of most CRAs
No matter how complex or simple the materials selection apparently go up and cracking resistance goes down as the
process, if it is improperly carried out mistakes in application, temperature increases, as the in-situ pH decreases, and as the
misunderstandings about alloy performance, and service chloride concentration of the produced brine increases. Thus,
failures can result. Therefore, continuing to use a conservative the corrosion and cracking resistance of CRAs at one
approach is recommended. Testing is indicated when the temperature is not necessarily indicative of their resistance to
anticipated service conditions approach or exceed the limits of corrosion or cracking at another temperature. Therefore care
our current knowledge base. must be taken, even when using a conservative approach to
alloy selection, to ensure that results from tests conducted at
Properly selected CRAs are either fully resistant to general one set of conditions are applicable at another set of
(weight loss) corrosion or their general corrosion rates are conditions. Extrapolating results from low to high temperature
sufficiently low in the environment of interest that significant should always be avoided.
corrosion cannot occur over the intended service life of the
well or field. However, in order to justify their cost and to Comments on Specific CRA Families
keep the probability of unexpected failures acceptably low, Martensitic Stainless Steels
CRAs are also required (or expected) to be resistant to: The corrosion and cracking resistance of 13Cr martensitc
stainless steels has been thoroughtly reviewed (12). It would
• Pitting corrosion, appear that although they hold promise for sweet HPHT wells,
• Crevice corrosion, and
SPE 97590 3

the 13Cr steels are not likely to be used in sour HPHT wells The high nickel alloys are more difficult to cast and are more
due to their demonstrated propensities for pitting corrosion, prone to casting defects such as hot tears, cracking and
crevice corrosion at high temperatures and EAC at relatively porosity than steels and other CRAs (14). Their corrosion
low H2S partial pressures. However, there remains resistance may not be equal to wrought alloys with the same
controversy over the H2S and temperature limits to which trade name (14). Therefore end users should develop stringent
these alloys, particularly the “super” 13Cr steels, can be specifications for cast nickel-base alloy components and work
exposed without cracking. Manufacturers of these alloys closely with the foundry to ensure that casting integrity is
generally publish recommended chloride and temperature maintained.
temperature limits for their alloys. Additional conservative
limits for martensitic stainless steels in H2S may be found in Comments on Specific Environments
NACEMR0175/ISO 15156. Elemental Sulfur
Elemental sulfur has been found to cause severe pitting and
Duplex Stainless Steels catastrophic cracking in many CRAs(15). Alloy C-276, a cold-
The duplex stainless steels, including the 22Cr, 25Cr, and worked, nickel-base alloy containing nominally 65Ni, 15Cr,
25Cr + W classes, exhibit considerably more resistance to and 16 Mo, is by far the CRA with the most resistance to
pitting, crevice corrosion, and cracking than the martensitic corrosion and cracking in environments that contain elemental
steels at all temperatures(13). However, they remain susceptible sulfur; however, even C-276 is not immune to its effects(11). If
to localized corrosion and cracking in relatively small amounts elemental sulfur is expected in a well, testing of all candidate
of H2S. These materials also show a marked influence of alloys is highly recommended.
chloride ion concentration on their resistance to cracking,
making interpretation and extrapolation from published test CO2
data difficult. Although guidelines for the use of duplex steels At high partial pressures of CO2, where the in situ pH is below
in HPHT conditions exist, acceptance of these guidelines is 4, pitting may initiate on 13Cr and some super-13Cr
not universal; and the final decision of whether to use duplex materials(12). The CO2 concentration or partial pressure has not
steels in a given environment is left to the end user. proven to be critical to the performance duplex, and nickel-
base CRAs in non-HPHT, sour wells(11). However, it is
The duplex steels must be cold worked for strengthening, possible that certain of these alloys with relatively low pitting
which does not appreciably affect their resistance to corrosion resistance equivalent numbers (PREN ≤ 35) may not be able
in CO2/brine solutions. However, cold working can have a to form or maintain their passive films in sour HPHT wells.
considerable detrimental effect on their cracking resistance in Thus, current ranking systems that allow use of low-PREN
H2S, and the effects of cold work on the cracking resistance of CRAs in sour wells without regard to CO2 partial pressure
duplex steels should be considered carefully before a final may have to be modified for use under HPHT conditions.
selection is made. This is particularly true for duplex steels
with yield strengths above about 135 ksi. Production Chemicals
In addition to produced fluids, candidate alloys for HPHT
Nickel-Based Alloys wells will be required to resist corrosion and cracking caused
The “super austenitic stainless steels” and the family of nickel- by the other fluids to which they may be exposed during
base alloys represent a large group of materials that have production operations. These may be natural fluids (such as
proved useful in sour HPHT and sour ultra-HPHT seawater), manufactured chemicals (such as brines and
environments. Both the cold-worked alloys (e.g. 825, G-3, C- mineral acids), or combinations of these. While the majority of
276) and the precipitation-hardened varieties (e.g. 718, 725, these fluids have a history of successful use with CRAs in
925) exhibit increased resistance to all forms of corrosion and non-HPHT wells, in many cases their compatibility with
cracking at higher temperatures and H2S concentrations than CRAs under HPHT or sour HPHT conditions is not well
the duplex and martensitic stainless steels. known and requires further study and review. The effects of
most or even all the fluids listed in Section 6.3 of European
High nickel alloys are generally immune to all concentrations Federation of Corrosion (EFC) No. 17(16) may need to be
of CO2 and, therefore, are limited only by H2S, temperature assessed for certain HPHT wells.
and the presence of elemental sulfur. Additionally, they are
not very sensitive to chloride concentration except at quite Fortunately, exposure times for CRAs to the fluids listed in
high levels (> 100,000 ppm). Thus, the effects of different Section 6.3 of EFC No. 17 are generally short. Therefore,
chloride levels, which can vary significantly from the bottom accelerated tests are not required and the duration of corrosion
to the top of wells due to water condensation, should always and cracking tests may approximate the anticipated service
be explored carefully before final selection of one of these exposure. However, it should be recognized that these fluids
alloys is made. Additionally alloys such as C-276 and 625 in may be used in combination or sequentially; and highly
the heavily cold-worked condition may be susceptible to aging aggressive produced species may be present in significant
at temperatures around 600° F (315° C)(14). Therefore, for concentrations, e.g., H2S in low pH acid returns. Therefore,
such applications, the ageing behavior of these and similar care should be taken when defining “worst-case” exposure
solid solution strengthened Ni-base alloys should be checked scenarios. As noted in European Federation of Corrosion
before a final selection is made. (EFC) No. 17, the consequences of ignoring potential
incompatibilities of CRAs with non-produced fluids and
4 SPE 97590

secondary environments can be severe. lowest PREN can be identified. These materials are of
interest since the localized corrosion processes for CRAs are
Advanced Material Selection and Qualification often initiated from pits. Also, the materials with the highest
In order to select appropriate materials for production tubing strength levels in a given grade are of interest since the risk of
and casing and other HPHT well equipment, the well designer cracking are greater for the higher strength, higher hardness
should first have relatively complete and accurate information materials. Thus, it is thus most desirable to identify the
concerning the composition, temperature, and pressure of the highest strength materials with the lowest pitting resistance in
production stream that will be handled by the well tubulars. a given grade to be those that are used in qualification tests.
Now, it is economically desirable in many instances to try to
obtain this information from reservoir tests made on adjacent Once an alloy that will be resistant to corrosion and cracking
wells. However, there are numerous instances where estimates has been identified by testing, the initial reservoir gas/fluid
of H2S in HPHT and ultra-HPHT wells have been off by more data should be used used along with experience and/or thermal
than two orders of magnitude. Errors this large are likely to and flow simulation models to develop a set of maximum
have significant effects on final material selection, especially anticipated “load conditions” that the well materials of
if martensitic stainless steels, duplex steels, or some of the construction can be expected to experience during their lives.
lesser alloyed austentic CRAs are considered to be candidate The “maximum load” conditions for each component are then
materials for a given well. Therefore, whenever possible, the used, in conjunction with their mechanical/physical properties
information concerning the anticipated production (at environmental conditions) to determine the optimum
environment should come from actual tests of the well in dimensions that will satisfy ASME VIII-3 or other appropriate
question. design requirements for the equipment.

There is a considerable variety of ways that individuals and The well production parameters that appear to be most
companies select CRAs for anticipated well conditions. A significant in this process are:
recent review of CRA selection guidelines by Craig (11) lists
the following methods that end users have used in the past: • Temperature,

1. The company may chose to select a CRA simply because • Partial pressures of H2S and CO2,
it is readily available or most “economical” (based on
initial cost). • In situ pH of produced brine/water,

2. The company may chose to review the literature (and any • Chloride content of produced water, and the
available applicable field data) and select a candidate
CRA based solely on this review. • Presence of elemental sulfur.
3. Companies with adequate research facilities and In addition, the following may also significantly affect the
capabilities may initiate a detailed test program designed observed corrosion/cracking performance of CRAs:
to identify the best alloy from a group that is expected to
perform satisfactorily in the particular part of a field • Corrosion damage initiated during acidizing
environment that is under study (i.e., downhole versus operations,
wellhead).
4. After review of available literature and other sources, a
• Damage to passive layers on the I.D. surfaces due to
company may, instead, choose to run a limited test
running of wire line tools,
program of a few candidate CRAs.
• Cracking/corrosion in completion fluids (in the
Craig(11) indicates that the first two approaches introduce large
production tubing – production casing annulus),
chances for errors to be made because certain critical factors
that are not known will have to be assumed. Moreover, he
• Contamination of the well by oxygen (e.g., during
continues that incorrect assumptions can lead to CRA failures
gas lift operations),
or using a more expensive CRA than is required. Additionally,
the third approach can easily require years to accomplish, at
considerable expense. Finally, then, he states that last • Pitting and/or crevice corrosion (e.g., in or adjacent
approach would appear to be the most cost effective for new to connections in the tubulars).
HPHT applications.
The preceeding indicates then, that selection of candidate
Since conservative tests of candidate materials are desired, CRAs for use in HPHT or ultra-HPHT conditions requires
selection of specific materials to test is important. The extensive knowledge of materials behavior in a number of
selection of the heats/lots of material to test entails review of diverse environments. The range of possible environments
both the chemical compositions and the mechanical indicates that qualification for HPHT and ultra-HPHT wells
properties. In a given grade of material, the chemical will involve extensive laboratory testing. Moreover, the
compositions are reviewed so that those heats/lots with the transition from linear elastic stress analysis to elastic-plastic
SPE 97590 5

and fracture mechanics analyses will require additional of environmental evaluation for all these systems is a
information about elevated temperature yield and tensile combination of reviews of published data from laboratory tests
strengths, fatigue strength, and fracture toughness. and actual field failure experiences.

Current test methods for qualification of CRAs such as those One of these systems, Socrates™ by InterCorr, selects CRAs
found in EFC No. 17, NACE TM0177 (17), NACE through evaluations at five major hierarchical levels:
TM0198 (18), and other industry standards do not address these
latter issues directly. Therefore, the push to produce HPHT • CRA selection based on mechanical properties, heat
wells is likely to require expansion of the existing database of treatment/cold work, and hardness limitations;
knowledge concerning CRA behavior in HPHT conditions to • CRA selection based upon characterization of
include the effects of higher temperatures and cyclic loading environmental parameters that are input by the user;
on the initiation and growth of cracks in these materials. Due • CRA selection based upon resistance to EAC;
to the expense involved, it is likely that this can be • CRA selection based upon resistance to pitting corrosion,
accomplished only through cooperation between the major and;
CRA manufacturers and end users. • CRA selection Selection of final candidate materials
based upon application related constraints.
Published Aids for Materials Selection
Craig(11) has presented a series of data plots designed to assist The system also facilitates database searches for materials that
the reader in making “preliminary”, conservative selections of have been used successfully in environmental conditions that
candidate alloys for HPHT and ultra-HPHT wells. The data are specified by the user. The system comes with a cost model
covers nine “typical” alloys, ranging from 13 Cr (UNS that allows users to compare utilization costs for different
S42000) to C276 (UNS N10276), temperatures up to 300° C, alloys.
and H2S partial pressures up to 10,000 psi. The guidelines
reportedly show conditions where corrosion rates are The Electronic Corrosion Engineer (ECE) from Intetech, LTD
manageably small (< 2 mpy) and where analysis of the data selects materials (makes recommendations) based upon the
indicates that the alloys are not likely to suffer either SSC or laboratory and field experience in both CO2 and H2S
SCC. The guidelines apparently do not apply to brines containing environments. For any set of input parameters, the
containing elemental sulfur or dissolved oxygen contents model interpolates linearly between actual data points on
greater than ~ 10 ppb. Craig’s(11) three-dimensional surfaces to establish whether an
alloy is acceptable with respect to its corrosion resistance.
A number of manufacturers and end users have also developed Cracking resistance is mostly evaluated from the same
guidelines for the use of CRA materials in various production parameters on the basis of algebraic equations fitted to
environments that include HPHT and in some cases ultra boundaries between “pass or fail” data.
HPHT conditions. Figures 2 through 5 show some of the
manufacturer’s guidelines, which are remarkably similar It is likely that expert systems will continue to prove useful for
concerning the H2S, chloride, and temperature limitations that selecting CRA materials for HPHT wells. However, it is not
are currently placed on the various alloy families. While the clear whether future versions of the systems mentioned above
manufacturers guidelines usually represent conservative (and similar systems that were not mentioned) will be revised
estimates of where corrosion or EAC was observed or is to address the fatigue and fracture mechanics issues that are
considered possible for the various classes of CRAs based central to HPHT design verification. In the opinion of the
upon the temperature and H2S content of the test environment, authors all CRA expert systems would benefit from such
it is recommended that detailed discussions be held with the changes.
appropriate manufacturer prior to the selection and use of one
of their materials. Finally, it is the authors understanding that both the expert
systems described described above may be purchased or,
Some end users have published proprietary materials selection alternatively, may be used by their developers to supply
guides for use within their companies. Unlike manufacturer’s analyses on a case-by-case basis.
guidelines, end user guidelines typically reflect usage
information and field failures that have been experienced by CRA Test Methods
the particular developer or company. Many times they also Both static and dynamic test methods are used to determine
reflect, if only indirectly, the risk tolerance of the company. the performance of CRAs in either sour HPHT and ultra-
One such set of guidelines is shown in Figure 6(19). This HPHT environments(7-10). Excellent discussions of the
example reflects the fact that both static and dynamic tests as limitations of static and dynamic tests for predicting the
well as input from materials behavior experts may be required behavior of CRAs in sour HPHT environments can be found
to fully qualify some CRAs for HPHT service. in NACE TM0177 and EFC No. 17.
CRA Expert Systems NACE Standard TM0177 and EFC No. 17 both cover static
At least two organizations have developed computer based constant-load and constant-strain tests using reduced-section
“Expert Systems” that are intended to assist end users when tensile specimens, bent-beam specimens, and C-ring
selecting CRAs for use in aggressive environments. The basis
6 SPE 97590

specimens. In addition, NACE MR0177 covers testing using between the increased gas production that can be achieved by
double-cantilever beam (DCB) specimens. While EFC No. 17 using large diameter tubing and greater completion costs that
does not cover DCB testing, it does include slow strain rate result from more connections and longer running times.
(SSR) testing, which is also covered by NACE TM0198.
Whereas the longer term static tests found in NACE TM0177 We discussed CRA manufacturing capabilities with the
and EFC No. 17 are most often used to qualify alloys for following manufacturers: Sumitomo Metals, Inc. (SMI);
service, SSR tests are better suited for ranking or screening Special Metals Corporation (SMC); Dalmine, Mannesmann &
alloys for HPHT and ultra-HPHT service. Despite their Vallourec (DMV), and Haynes Corporation (HC). We also
successful use in the past, none of the test methods mentioned discussed the anticipated needs for CRA tubulars with several
above measure the effects of cyclic loading. Therefore, the influential end users. The following is a summary of the major
available test methods may not prove compatible with findings resulting from those discussions.
emerging design standards such as ASME VIII-3.
There appears to be gap between the capabilities of
EFC No. 17 and Section 7 of NACE TM0177 both provide for manufacturers for producing long, large diameter CRA
testing at elevated temperatures and pressures. Any of the four tubulars and the anticipated needs of end users. Tubular mills
standard test samples may be used for the high are effectively at their capacity for size and strength,
temperature/high pressure testing. The test solution and gas particularly with respect to cold-working facilities. Thus,
mixture to be used in the high temperature and/or pressure while incremental improvements may be possible, large
testing are set by the user. NACE MR0175/ISO 15156 improvements in the size and strength ranges for CRA
prescribes minimum test conditions for qualifying new and tubulars are not expected.
existing alloys for different ranges of sour service.
The industry experience and current knowledge on high CRA
Both NACE TM0177 and Appendix 4 of EFC No. 17 alloys indicate they are mature with respect to corrosion
recommend that that application specific testing be performance. Future advances in this area are expected to be
considered. In this regard, EFC No. 17 states “materials marginal. The challenge lies in increasing worldwide
should be evaluated under the most severe environmental and manufacturing capabilities.
mechanical conditions that are realistically anticipated for the
intended service”. The document then goes on further and A large increase in manufacturing capability will involve a
identifies solution pH, chloride concentration, temperature and significant capital investment on the part of manufacturers.
hydrogen sulfide partial pressure as the primary environmental Such a large capital expenditure is not practical for the
test parameters that need to be controlled. Thus, manufacturers without significant guarantees for future orders.

• The test pH should be less than or equal to the Conclusions

lowest anticipated production pH, 1. Industry experience and current knowledge on CRAs is
relatively mature with respect to corrosion performance
• The H2S partial pressure should be equal to or and cracking performance in sour HPHT environments.
greater than the expected production partial pressure, Future advances in this area are expected to be marginal.

• The chloride concentration of the test solution 2. The trend towards using the fatigue and fracture
should be equal to or greater than that expected mechanics-based design verification methods of ASME
during production, and VIII-3 will necessarily need to be supported by materials
performance test data in HPHT environments of interest.
• The oxygen content of the test solution should be Due to the complexity and expense involved in testing in
maintained at 10 ppb, or less. HPHT conditions, this data will come slowly unless
testing is supported by both end users and manufacturers.
For constant and sustained load tests (e.g., NACE TM0177
Method A) the EFC document recommends a starting test 3. The large capital expenditures required to increase
stress of 90% of the 0.2% offset yield stress. For constant worldwide capacity for CRA tubulars is not practical for
strain tests (e.g. NACE TM0177 Methods B and C) the EFC the manufacturers without significant guarantees for
document recommends a test stress of 100% of the 0.2% offset future orders and/or financial partnership with the end
yield stress. Consideration should be given to using higher users.
stresses if they can be reasonably expected or if they are
documented through finite element analysis. References
1. Tom Baird, Robert Drummond, Dave Mathison, Bjorn
Langseth, and Lisa Silipigno, “High-Pressure, High-
Worldwide CRA Manufacturing Capabilities Temperature Well Logging, Perforating and Testing, Oilfield
The high working and bottomhole pressures of HPHT wells Review, Summer 1998, pages 50 – 67.
are likely to result in a need to use large-diameter, heavy-wall 2. Kenneth Young, Chris Alexander, Richard Biel, “Updated
tubing strings. Thick, large diameter CRA tubes are generally Design Methods for HPHT Equipment”, SPE Paper 97595, 2005
limited to short lengths, which results in an economic trade off SPE App. Tech. Workshop on High Pressure/ High Temperature
Sour Well Design, Houston, TX, U.S.A., 17-19 May, 2005.
SPE 97590 7

3. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2,

Pressure Vessels, Alternative Rules, 2004 edition, New York,
NY.
4. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 3,
Pressure Vessels, Alternative Rules for Construction of High
Pressure Vessels, 2004 Edition, New York, NY.
5. NACE MR0175/ISO 15156-1, Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries – Materials for Use in H2S-Containing Environments
in Oil and Gas Production – Part 1: General Principals for
Selection of Cracking-Resistant Materials.
6. NACE MR0175/ISO 15156-3, Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries – Materials for Use in H2S-Containing Environments
in Oil and Gas Production – Part 3: Cracking-Resistant CRAs
(Corrosion Resistant Alloys) and Other Alloys.
7. R. S. Tresader and R. N. Tuttle, “Corrosion in Oil and Gas
Production – A Compilation of Classic Papers”, NACE, 1981.
8. J. Kolts and S. W. Ciraldi, “Corrosion Resistant Alloys for Oil
and Gas Production, Vols. I & II, NACE, 1996
9. “Corrosion Testing and Modeling in Oil and Gas Production –
Classic Papers”, NACE 1999.
10. “Corrosion Testing and Modeling in Oil and Gas Production –
Latest Research: Papers Published Since 1997”, NACE, 1999.
11. Bruce D. Craig, “Selection Guidelines for Corrosion Resistant
Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry”, NiDI Technical Series No.
10 073.
12. A. Turnbull and A. Griffiths, “Corrosion and Cracking of
Weldable 13Cr Martensitic Stainless Steels – A Review”, NPL
Report MATC(A)108.
13. Robert N. Gunn, Duplex Stainless Steels – Microstructure,
Properties and Applications, Abington Publishing, Cambridge,
England, 1997.
14. NACE International Publication 1F192), Use of Corrosion-
Resistant Alloys in Oilfield Environments, NACE International,
1993.
15. NACE MR0175, Sulfide Stress Cracking Resistant Metallic
Materials for Oilfield Equipment, NACE International, Houston
TX, 1996.
16. EFC Publication No. 17, “ Corrosion Resistant Alloys for Oil
and Gas Production: General Requirements and Test Methods
for H2S Service”, 1996.
17. NACE Standard TM0177-96, Standard Test Method Laboratory
Testing of Metals for Resistance to Specific Forms of
Environmental Cracking in H2S Environments, NACE
International, Houston, TX, 1996.
18. NACE TM0198-2002, askjfa;slkfjas;lfjas;fkjas;,NACE
International, Houston, TX, 2002.
19. M. Place, Offshore Technology Conference 1991, Paper No.
OTC6603.
Figure 1. Existing HPHT and ultra-HPHT fields. After Baird, et. al.(1).
SPE 97590 9

Figure 2. Guidelines for materials selection for sour HPHT and ultra-HPHT wells. Published with permission of DMV.
10 SPE 97590

Figure 3. Guidelines for tubulars selection for HPHT and ultra-HPHT wells. Published with permission of Haynes.
SPE 97590 11

Figure 4. Additional Guidelines for selection of CRAs for HPHT wells. Published with permission of JFE Steel.
Figure 5. Guidelines for tubulars selection for HPHT and ultra-HPHT wells. Published with permission of Sumitomo Metals.
SPE 97590 13

(click on red notes for more information)

START Recommended Test Temperature by Alloy Class

(based upon specific envirionmental cracking failure mechanism)

version 6.1
INDEX to Guide Obtain Note Primary Test Other Test
Representative Alloy Class Temperature Temperature
Martensitic Stainless Steel Room Temp. Maximum operating temp.
Material
Super Martensitic Stainless Steel Room Temp. Maximum operating temp.
Duplex Stainless Steel 190°-220°F (88°-104°C) Maximum operating temp.
Austenitic Stainless Steel Maximum operating temp.
Service Nickel Base Alloys Maximum operating temp.

Note
Acidizing &
Completion Production

Note Note
PASS C-ring C-Ring or PASS Note
PASS
4.p.b SSRT
Note
FAIL FAIL FAIL
YES
Is alloy
Note
>13Cr RSRT
NO PASS Contact
FAIL
Specialist

> 25Cr SDSS Note YES

Alloy not Suitable
Tmax > 400F

NO
Alloy Suitable

Figure 6. Example of a proprietary CRA test protocol. After Rhodes, et.al.(19).