See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274384133 The Carbon Dioxide/Hydrogen Sulfide Ratio -- Use and Relevance Article in Materials performance · May 2015 CITATION READS 1 1,060 1 author: Stephen N Smith Ohio University 44 PUBLICATIONS 466 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Stephen N Smith on 01 May 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. MATERIALS SELECTION & DESIGN The Carbon Dioxide/Hydrogen Sulfide Ratio—Use and Relevance Stephen N. Smith, FNACE, Corrosion and Materials Consultant, The Woodlands, Texas During the past decade, there has been an increasing use of the assumption that there is a dividing line between carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) corrosion that is determined by a CO2/H2S gas partial pressure ratio of 500. Most users of this ratio are not familiar with its origins, the assumptions it implies, or its practical limits. This work investigates the history and the basis for the ratio. D During the last 20 to 30 years, a greater understanding has developed regarding corrosion issues that exist in sour oil and gas systems that contain both hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon dioxide (CO 2) vs. the sweet systems that contain just CO 2. Since even small additions of H 2S were recognized as having an impact, guidance was sought to help determine just how much H 2S was required to turn a system from sweet to sour. Often, a “rule of thumb” ratio of 500 for the CO2/H2S partial pressure has been utilized. This ratio is widely quoted and appears in a number of industry documents, but its origin and technical basis do not seem to be well documented. There have been a number of documents over the last few years that have referenced a CO2/H2S ratio of 500 as the transition point between sweet and sour corrosion. 1-2 The earliest identified mention of a value of 500 for the CO2/H2S ratio was found in an article by Dunlop, Hassell, and Rhodes3 that was presented at CORROSION/83. This was only eight years after the original DeWaard and Milliams4 article on 2 MAY 2015 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE CO2 corrosion in May 1975, so it seems reasonable to assume that an earlier origin would not be likely. The topic of Dunlop’s article was the fundamentals of sweet well corrosion, not sour or even slightly sour corrosion. The content of the article dealing with CO2/H2S is as follows: Iron Carbonate—Iron Sulfide: Here, a simpler order-of-magnitude guide is proposed. From the values tabulated by Latimer5 for the appropriate solubility products and ionization constants, coexistence of siderite and iron sulfide (FeS) at 25 °C is indicated when the partial pressure ratio of CO 2/H 2S = 500. Thus, by ignoring temperature effects and solution imperfections, the conclusion is reached that siderite (iron carbonate [FeCO 3]) should prevail when the partial pressure ratio CO2/H2S > 500; when it is <500, FeS can be expected. In order to re-derive Dunlop’s ratio of 500, it was necessary to obtain a copy of the 1938 version of Latimer’s publication in order to use the same solubility products and ionization constants. Assuming that this was Dunlop’s only source of information, this was also the only way to determine exactly what values were used and how the issue of gas solubility was handled. The data available and the method that was required to obtain a value of 500 are shown in the appendix of the presentation by Smith. 6 It is assumed that Dunlop rounded the calculated value of 490 that was derived up to the reported value of 500 since this was common practice among engineers at that time, many of whom had started out using log tables. Calculators and desktop computers were still somewhat new in 1983. NACE INTERNATIONAL: VOL. 54, NO. 5 Data Sensitivity Temperature Effects Dunlop stated that the ratio value of 500 was valid, “ignoring temperature effects and solution imperfections.” There is also a tacit assumption in the quality of the thermodynamic data that was used. Since Latimer’s data was so old, a new set of thermodynamic data was used to evaluate the effect that more modern data would have upon the calculation. Since it is preferable to use data from a single source whenever possible to maintain consistency, all data used for the comparison were from Naumov 7 except that Berner’s 8 value for mackinawite was used. When Latimer’s values were replaced with the values from Naumov that appear in Table 1, a ratio of 2070 is calculated instead of 490. Comparing the values in the table, there are minor changes in the free energy values, but nothing that explained a four-fold increase in the ratio. At this point, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken to better understand the sensitivity of the calculation to what seemed to be minor changes in the thermodynamic input values. Dunlop’s calculations were repeated using Latimer’s data, except that the free energy value for FeCO 3 was varied by up to 1%, a value that is still larger than the value provided by Naumov. No other input values were altered. As seen in Figure 1, this minor reduction in one variable increased the calculated ratio from 490 to 7,462. The calculation is therefore extremely sensitive to minor changes in the thermodynamic input data. If these small fluctuations did not occur equally in both the numerator and denominator of the CO2 and H2S ratio terms, then fluctuations of over several orders of magnitude in ratio could easily result. In most cases, the random nature of variations between the eight thermodynamic values involved in the calculation tends to diminish the magnitude of the change in the ratio. However, any changes that occur will still be magnified, so that even small overall variations can create significant deviations from 500. The effect of temperature upon the ratio was investigated since one of Dunlop’s assumptions was that the temperature was 25 °C and that temperature effects would be ignored. Naumov’s approach to modifying the thermodynamic values for reactions as a function of temperature was used. The results of these calculations are shown in Figure 2. Since the calculations for Figure 2 used Naumov’s data, the minor variations in values introduced by the temperature adjustment calculation combined with the sensitivity to the thermodynamic data has reduced the starting point ratio at 25 °C from 500 to 15. This is because the temperature compensation calculation required additional thermodynamic inputs and the increased number of input variables increased the sensitivity to variations in quality. The resulting changes in the ratio as a function of temperature when compared to the variations that occur between thermodynamic data sets are minor within the temperature range of 25 to 100 °C. The cal- TABLE 1. THERMODYNAMIC FREE ENERGY VALUES USED IN EVALUATION Species ∆G° Latimer ∆G° Naumov CO2vapor –94,450 –94,255 H2CO3 –149,170 –148,940 HCO3– –140,490 –140,260 CO –126,390 –126,170 H2Svapor –7,870 –7,955 H2Saqueous –6,520 –6,660 2,950 2,880 23,420 20,500 2– 3 HS – S 2– Fe –20,310 –22,050 –161,260 –159,350 FeS –22,900 –22,300 H2O –56,690 –56,687 2+ FeCO3 culation was not extended beyond 120 °C because Naumov’s extrapolation process becomes progressively less reliable and there are phase changes that start to occur at the higher temperatures in some of the FIGURE 1 Plot of calculated ratio as function of % reduction in ∆G FeCO3. NACE INTERNATIONAL: VOL. 54, NO. 5 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE MAY 2015 3 MATERIALS SELECTION & DESIGN compounds, such as FeS. These begin to complicate the calculation. Appropriate Use and Relevance of the Ratio FIGURE 2 Calculated effect of temperature upon the CO2/H2S ratio. FIGURE 3 Relationship between oilfield corrosion products.9 4 MAY 2015 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE Since the ratio calculation assumes the coexistence of FeCO3 and the mackinawite form of FeS, the conditions where the ratio is valid is shown as Line 16 of Figure 3. At the lower temperatures shown by Line 8, the ratio calculation is not valid because the equilibrium shown by this line involves the equilibrium between Fe2+ and FeS corrosion products, not FeCO3-FeS. Although it might be possible to extrapolate the ratio for Line 16 to the range defined by Line 8 for rough guidance purposes, such actions could be fraught with danger because other considerations, such as pH and the total dissolved solids, could introduce significant errors. It should also be remembered that the ratio calculation assumes that the form of FeS that is precipitated is mackinawite. This assumption is valid for low concentrations of H2S and temperatures below ~100 to 120 °C. At higher temperatures and concentrations of H2S, the form of FeS that is produced will usually be either troilite or pyrrhotite. Both of these compounds are more thermodynamically stable. Changing from mackinawite to pyrrhotite using Dunlop’s original calculation would mean that the value of the ratio would need to be adjusted from 500 to at least 2,500. Appropriate use of the ratio therefore requires the consideration of a number of factors, such as: • The sensitivity of the ratio to assumed thermodynamic inputs, which can alter the calculated ratio to values as low as 9 to more than 2,600. • Consideration of the production conditions to determine whether FeCO3 would form in the absence of H 2S as opposed to Fe 2+ ions in solution. These conditions usually exist for temperatures in excess of 65 °C or where sufficiently high concentrations of bicarbonate exist in the produced water to exceed the supersaturation value for FeCO3. NACE INTERNATIONAL: VOL. 54, NO. 5 The Carbon Dioxide/Hydrogen Sulfide Ratio—Use and Relevance • Considerations of whether the type of FeS that would form for conditions below the calculated ratio would be mackinawite or troilite/pyrrhotite. For the higher temperature and higher H 2S partial pressure conditions where troilite or pyrrhotite will form, the value for the calculated ratio would be much larger than 2,000 because the troilite and pyrrhotite of FeS are much more stable and therefore require less H2S. • Consideration of the assumptions implicit in the calculation, such as a temperature of 25 °C and a low ionicstrength produced water. The high concentrations of dissolved solids found in many oilfield produced waters could alter the theoretical ratio by changing the activity coefficients for the dissolved ions. The assumption of low ionic strength also means that the effect of bicarbonates from the reservoir or acetic acid is not considered. Conclusions The origin of the value of 500 for the CO2/H2S ratio appears to be covered in the article by Dunlop, et al. Although the article did not provide an explanation for the derivation of the value, the reference to Latimer did provide the information that was required to develop a derivation of a ratio value that was close enough to 500 to believe that if Dunlop, et al. were not the origin of the value, then at least they were familiar with the source. Although the ratio has historically provided a useful rule of thumb, it has a number of key assumptions, including a temperature of 25 °C and low ion-strength aqueous solution. The impact of these limiting assumptions is usually not con­ sidered. Although Dunlop’s calculated ratio is only valid at 25 °C, temperature was found to have only a minor effect upon the ratio within the range of 25 to 100 °C assuming that the FeS corrosion product is mackinawite. Temperature increases beyond 100 °C were not investigated because of NACE INTERNATIONAL: VOL. 54, NO. 5 View publication stats issues associated with potential phase changes. The ratio would have to increase if the FeS corrosion product changes from mackinawite to pyrrhotite due to a change in corrosion conditions. Using Latimer’s data, the ratio would need to be increased from 500 to at least 2,500 just to account for the change from mackinawite to pyrrhotite. The ratio is also not applicable for the lower temperature and low pH conditions where Fe2+ is the likely corrosion product rather than FeCO3. Although there is a sound scientific basis for the ratio, the error band produced by variations in the thermodynamic data inputs is so large as to make the ratio’s use impractical as an engineering guideline. Ratio values ranging from as low as 9 to as high as 2,600 were calculated. However, a change of only 1% to the FeCO3 free energy increased the value to over 7,600. It is therefore far too sensitive to the specific thermodynamic input values to be of any practical value beyond use as a very rough order of magnitude guide. The use of the CO2/H2S ratio as a rule of thumb to determine sweet vs. sour corrosion conditions is recommended for use in only the broadest of terms. The ratio is simply too sensitive to thermodynamic input data quality to be a useful engineering tool. Existing computer tools that model corrosion chemistry and can calculate FeCO 3 and FeS formation should be used whenever possible rather than reliance upon this rule of thumb. If a very quick evaluation is needed, use of the ratio should be limited only to the broadest of evaluations. Where ratios for produced fluids result in values that are below 1 or above 5,000, these conditions might be considered to be sour or sweet, respectively. Any ratio that is between 1 and 5,000 can only be considered to be questionable. For conditions that fall within the questionable range, either laboratory testing or a comprehensive thermodynamic modeling program should be used to determine whether the corrosion reactions will be driven by sweet or sour chemistry. References 1 R. Nyborg, “Guidelines for Prediction of CO 2 Corrosion in Oil and Gas Production Systems,” IFE/KR/E-2009/003, Sept. 2009. 2 NACE TG 305 Proposed Standard Practice, “Wet Gas Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology for Pipelines,” Draft 5 (Houston, TX: NACE International, 2010). 3 A.K. Dunlop, H.L. Hassell, P.R. Rhodes, “Fundamental Considerations in Sweet Gas Well Corrosion,” CORROSION/83, paper no. 46 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1983). 4 C. DeWaard, D.E. Milliams, “Carbonic Acid Corrosion of Steel,” Corrosion 31, 5 (1974): pp. 177-181. 5 W.M. Latimer, Oxidation Potentials (New York, NY: Prentice Hall, 1938). 6 S.N. Smith, “Discussion of the History and Relevance of the CO 2/H 2S Ratio,” CORROSION 2011, paper no. 11065 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2011). 7 G.B. Naumov, B.N. Ryzhenko, I.L. Khodakovsky, “Handbook of Thermodynamic Data,” U.S.G.S. Report WRD-74-00 1, January 1974. 8 R.A. Berner, “Stability Fields of Iron Minerals in Anaerobic Marine Sediments,” J. Geology 72 (1964): pp. 826‑834. 9 S.N. Smith, “A Proposed Mechanism for Corrosion in Slightly Sour Oil and Gas Production” (Houston, TX: International Corrosion Congress, 1993). This article is based on CORROSION 2011 paper no. 11065, presented in Houston, Texas. STEPHEN N. SMITH, FNACE, is an independent consultant based in The Woodlands, Texas, e-mail: Stephen.Smith.PE@ gmail.com. He has an M.S. degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Texas at El Paso. A 41-year member of NACE International, he is serving as NACE Institute Policy and Practices Director, is a NACE Fellow, and received a NACE Technical Achievement Award and Distinguished Service Award. He is a Senior Research Fellow of the Institute of Corrosion and Multiphase Flow at Ohio University. MATERIALS PERFORMANCE MAY 2015 5