materials

Article
Effect of CO2 Partial Pressure on the Corrosion
Behavior of J55 Carbon Steel in 30% Crude
Oil/Brine Mixture
Haitao Bai 1 , Yongqing Wang 1, *, Yun Ma 2 , Qingbo Zhang 2 and Ningsheng Zhang 2
1 Institute of Petroleum and Gas Engineering, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu 610500, China;
baihaitao_xsyu@126.com
2 College of Petroleum Engineering, Key Laboratory of Environment Pollution Control Technology of Oil Gas
and Reservoir Protection in Shaanxi Protection, Xi’an Shiyou University, Xi’an 710065, China;
mayun_xian123@126.com (Y.M.); renpeng_xian@126.com (Q.Z.); zhangnsh_xian@126.com (N.Z.)
* Correspondence: wangyongqing_swpi@126.com; Tel.: +86-150-9186-5583




Received: 22 August 2018; Accepted: 17 September 2018; Published: 18 September 2018


Abstract: The influence of CO2 partial pressure on the corrosion properties, including corrosion rate,
morphology, chemical composition, and corrosion depth, of J55 carbon steel in 30% crude oil/brine
at 65 ◦ C was investigated. A corrosion mechanism was then proposed based on the understanding of
the formation of localized corrosion. Results showed that localized corrosion occurred in 30% crude
oil/brine with CO2 . The corrosion rate sharply increased as the CO2 partial pressure (Pco2 ) was
increased from 0 to 1.5 MPa, decreased from Pco2 = 1.5 MPa to Pco2 = 5.0 MPa, increased again at Pco2
= 5.0 MPa, and then reached a constant value after Pco2 = 9.0 MPa. The system pH initially decreased,
rapidly increased, and then stabilized as CO2 partial pressure was increased. In the initial period,
the surface of J55 carbon steel in the CO2 /30% crude oil/brine mixtures showed intense corrosion.
In conclusion, CO2 partial pressure affects the protection performance of FeCO3 by changing the
formation of corrosion scale and further affecting the corrosion rate.

Keywords: mechanism of CO2 corrosion; J55 carbon steel; CO2 partial pressure; localized corrosion

1. Introduction
In recent years, the carbon dioxide flooding enhanced oil recovery (CO2 -EOR) technology has
been widely applied worldwide [1–3] and has made a positive contribution to the geological reserves
of carbon. However, CO2 -EOR is expected to significantly increase the corrosion failure risk of
tubes [4,5]. The acceptable rate of wellbore corrosion in China is less than 0.076 mm·year−1 [6], and the
qualitative categorization of carbon steel corrosion rates for oil production systems in the US includes
low (<0.025 mm·year−1 ), moderate (0.025–0.12 mm·year−1 ), high (0.13–0.25 mm·year−1 ), and severe
(>0.25 mm·year−1 ) [7]. When water cut is greater than 50%, the corrosion rates of carbon steel (API
5CT L80) and P110 steel are 3.4–34.2 and 0.03–5.0 mm·year−1 , respectively [8,9], which are far beyond
the acceptable range. Thus, many studies have focused on CO2 corrosion, especially on the effect of
environment on corrosion.
Mass loss during CO2 corrosion is generally related to environmental conditions, such as
temperature, pressure, salt concentration, solution pH, and CO2 partial pressure. CO2 partial pressure
and protective scale considerably impact corrosion rate. Many studies demonstrated that the CO2
corrosion rate of carbon steel increases with increasing CO2 pressure [10–12]. The concentration of
H2 CO3 increases as CO2 partial pressure increases, which accelerates the cathodic reactions and
increases the corrosion rate [13–16]. CO2 partial pressure affects the protective properties and
components of the corrosion product layer by changing the system pH. Other studies [15–21] indicated

Materials 2018, 11, 1765; doi:10.3390/ma11091765 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2018, 11, 1765 2 of 15

that FeCO3 is the main composition in the corrosion product layer that is formed on corroded carbon
steel surface exposed to CO2 environment. A.H. Mustafa [17] reported that the corrosion product film
of X52 steel is inhomogeneous and porous in CO2 /formation water at different CO2 pressures (10,
40, and 60 bar) and 60 ◦ C, and the corrosion product layer is mainly composed of FeCO3 and Fe3 C.
However, increasing CO2 partial pressure does not often accelerate corrosion. Yoon-Seok Choi [19]
proposed that the corrosion rates of carbon steel measured in CO2 -saturated water show no significant
difference (19.5–20.1 mm·year−1 ) with pressure (4, 6, and 8 MPa) at 50 ◦ C. Preliminary studies mainly
focused on the influences of CO2 partial pressure on corrosion in brine environment and of water cut
on corrosion in CO2 /crude oil/brine environment, but few studies focused on the influence of CO2
partial pressure on corrosion in crude oil/brine environment. Thus, understanding the effect of CO2
partial pressure on the corrosion behavior of J55 carbon steel in crude oil/brine mixtures is important.
In the present work, the effect of CO2 partial pressure on the corrosion behavior of J55 carbon
steel was compared in CO2 /30% crude oil (v/v, the same below)/brine mixtures. The corrosion rates
were determined by weight mass loss, and the maximum corrosion depth was obtained with an optical
digital microscope. The morphology and composition of the formed corrosion product film were
characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive spectrometry (EDS), and
X-Ray diffraction (XRD).

2. Materials and Methods

The material used in this work was J55 carbon steel with a composition (wt.%) of 0.36% C, 0.30%
Si, 1.45% Mn, 0.016% P, 0.004% S, 0.051% Cr, 0.009% Ni, 0.07% Cu, and Fe balance. The specimen for
weight loss test was machined into 50 mm × 10 mm × 3 mm and a hole of 6 mm with an exposed area
of 13.6 cm2 . The samples were placed in acetone to remove oil on the surface and then immersed in
ethanol for 5 min for further degreasing and dehydration. The samples were dried in cold air, packed
with filter paper, and then placed in the dryer for 4–7 h. Finally, the size and weight of the samples
were measured to within an accuracy of 0.1 mg.
The corrosive medium is a mixture of oil and water, the crude oil is obtained from the C8 reservoir
of a certain block in Changqing oilfield, and the brine is the simulated solution prepared according to
the composition of the brine in the reservoir. The compositions of the crude oil and simulated solution
are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1. Composition properties of crude oil.

Property Unit Value

Kinematic viscosity (65 ◦ C) mm2 ·s−1 7.254
Acid value mg KOH·g−1 0.107
Sulfur content wt.% 0.08
Wax content wt.% 12.86
Colloid wt.% 2.31
Asphaltene wt.% 0.60

Table 2. Properties of simulated brine preparation.

Property Unit Value

NaCl g ·L−1 18.5028
CaCl2 g ·L−1 13.7338
MgCl2 g ·L−1 0.5897
Na2 SO4 g ·L−1 0.2440
NaHCO3 g ·L−1 0.0631
salinity g ·L−1 33.0000
Materials 2018, 11, 1765 3 of 15
Materials 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14

In CO
In CO22-EOR,
-EOR, gas channelling often
gas channelling occurs [22,23],
often occurs [22,23], during
during which
which the
the CO
CO22 partial
partial pressure
pressure rises
rises
from the
from the bottom
bottom holehole to
to no
no more
more than
than 15
15MPa
MPain inthe
theCC88reservoir.
reservoir.Corrosion
Corrosiontest
test was
was carried
carried out
out in
in
the PARR-4578 autoclave (Parr Instrument Company, Champaign,
the PARR-4578 autoclave (Parr Instrument Company, Champaign, IL, USA) by using the weight-lossIL, USA) by using the
weight-loss
method, andmethod, and the
the schematic schematic
is shown is shown
in Figure 1. Ain 1 LFigure
aliquot1. of
A the
1 Lmixture
aliquot ofof 30%
the mixture of 30%
crude oil/brine
crude
was oil/brine
added to thewas added and
autoclave, to the
theautoclave,
dissolved and
oxygenthewas
dissolved
purgedoxygen was purged
in the solution with ainsmall
the solution
amount
with
of a smallgas
nitrogen amount
for 4 hof nitrogen
under gas forof4 0.5
a pressure h under a pressure
MPa [13] of 0.5 MPa [13]
and a temperature of 65 ◦ C.aThe
and temperature
autoclaveof 65
was
°C. The autoclave
pressured with purewas N2 gaspressured with pure Nvalues
to the experimental 2 gas (total
to thepressure
experimental
value—COvalues (total pressure
2 partial pressure)
value—CO
and with CO2 gas to a total pressure value of 15 MPa for 2 days at the running speed 2ofdays
2 partial pressure) and with CO 2 gas to a total pressure value of 15 MPa for −1
at·sthe
0.5 m
running
(200 r·min ).−
speed
1 of 0.5 m·s −1 (200 r·min−1).

Figure
Figure 1. Flow chart
1. Flow chart of
of steel
steel corrosion
corrosion rate
rate evaluation
evaluation system
system (Mass
(Mass loss
loss method).
method).

After corrosion induction, the three corroded samples were divided into two groups for scanning
After corrosion induction, the three corroded samples were divided into two groups for
electron microscope (SEM), energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS), and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses
scanning electron microscope (SEM), energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS), and X-ray diffraction
of the corrosion scales formed on the steel surface. After these tests, the three corroded samples were
(XRD) analyses of the corrosion scales formed on the steel surface. After these tests, the three
subjected to mass loss tests to determine the average corrosion rate.
corroded samples were subjected to mass loss tests to determine the average corrosion rate.
The corrosion rate of the steel was determined by the mass loss technique in accordance with
The corrosion rate of the steel was determined by the mass loss technique in accordance with
the ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials) G1-03-Standard practice for preparing, cleaning,
the ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials) G1-03-Standard practice for preparing, cleaning,
and evaluating corrosion [24]. Immediately after corrosion induction, the samples were rinsed with
and evaluating corrosion [24]. Immediately after corrosion induction, the samples were rinsed with
distilled water and the crude oil on the surface was removed with acetone. Corrosion products were
distilled water and the crude oil on the surface was removed with acetone. Corrosion products were
removed with an ultrasonic cleaner. Then, the samples were immersed in an acid cleaning solution
removed with an ultrasonic cleaner. Then, the samples were immersed in an acid cleaning solution
(500 mL of HCl and 3.5 g of hexamethylenamine diluted with water to 1000 mL) for 10 min, and the
(500 mL of HCl and 3.5 g of hexamethylenamine diluted with water to 1000 mL) for 10 min, and the
corrosion products on the surface were removed. After being immersed, the samples were thoroughly
corrosion products on the surface were removed. After being immersed, the samples were
washed with distilled water until the acid cleaning solution on the surface was completely removed.
thoroughly washed with distilled water until the acid cleaning solution on the surface was
Then, the samples were placed in ethanol for cleaning and dehydration twice. The samples were dried
completely removed. Then, the samples were placed in ethanol for cleaning and dehydration twice.
in cold air, packed with filter paper, and then placed in the dryer for 4–7 h. Finally, the samples were
The samples were dried in cold air, packed with filter paper, and then placed in the dryer for 4–7 h.
weighed to within an accuracy of 0.1 mg. The corrosion rate was calculated as follows:
Finally, the samples were weighed to within an accuracy of 0.1 mg. The corrosion rate was
calculated as follows: 8.76 × 104 × (m − mt )
rcorr = (1)
8.76 ×S10×4t××(ρm − mt )
rcorr = (1)
where rcorr is the average corrosion rate, mm·year S ×−1t;×mρis the weight of the test sheet before the
experiment, g; mt is the weight of the test sheet after the experiment, g; S is the whole surface contacted
where rcorr is the average corrosion rate, mm·year−1; m is the weight of the test sheet before the
with solution, cm2 ; ρ is the density of tested steel, g·cm−3 , which is 7.86 g·cm−3 in the case of carbon
experiment, g; mt is the weight of the test sheet after the experiment, g; S is the whole surface
contacted with solution, cm2; ρ is the density of tested steel, g·cm−3, which is 7.86 g·cm−3 in the case of
Materials 2018, 11, 1765 4 of 15
Materials 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14

carbon steel;
steel; and t isand
thetimmersion
is the immersion
duration,duration,
h. Theh.meanThe mean corrosion
corrosion rate error
rate error was calculated
was calculated usingusing
three
three parallel
parallel specimens
specimens in eachin test.
each test.
The
The surface
surface microstructure
microstructure of ofthe
thecorrosion
corrosionproduct
product scales
scales onon
thethe surface
surface of corroded
of corroded samples
samples was
was analyzed
analyzed via SEM via SEM (FEI Quanta
(FEI Quanta 600F microscope,
600F microscope, FEI Corporation,
FEI Corporation, Hillsboro,Hillsboro,
TX, USA). TX,TheUSA). The
elemental
elemental
compositions compositions of the product
of the corrosion corrosionscales
productwerescales were by
estimated estimated by EDS INCA
EDS (OXFORD (OXFORD energyINCA
350,
energy
Oxford 350, OxfordOxford,
Instrument, Instrument,
UK). The Oxford, UK). The
composition composition
of the of the was
corroded samples corroded
performedsamples was
with XRD
performed
(Bruker D8with XRD,XRD Bruker(Bruker D8 XRD,Karlsruhe,
Corporation, Bruker Corporation,
Germany).Karlsruhe, Germany).
The
The maximum
maximumcorrosion corrosiondepthdepthof of the
the corroded
corroded samples
samples was was analyzed
analyzed with
with anan optical
optical digital
digital
microscope (OLYMPUSDSX500,
microscope (OLYMPUS DSX500,Olympus
Olympus Corporation,
Corporation, Tokyo,Tokyo,
Japan)Japan) after removal
after removal of the
of the corrosion
corrosion product
product layers by layers
using by theusing the acid cleaning
acid cleaning solution.solution. Under bright-field
Under bright-field mode, themode, the corroded
corroded sample
sample
surfacesurface was subjected
was subjected to grandto horizon
grand horizon three dimensions
three dimensions (3D) image
(3D) image capture capture using adjacent
using adjacent visual
visual synthetic
synthetic diagram diagram
mode. mode. The magnification
The magnification was 100wastimes,100with
times, × 3 nine-image
a 3with a 3 × 3 nine-image
syntheticsynthetic
diagram
diagram and an ratio
and an overlap overlap ratioFour
of 10%. of 10%. Four
points onpoints on the
the front andfront
backand back of
surfaces surfaces of the were
the samples samples were
collected,
collected,
as shown as shown2.inThe
in Figure Figure
area2.ofThe × 3of
the 3area the 3 × 3 nine-image
nine-image synthetic
synthetic diagram wasdiagram
7612 µmwas× 7612
7612µm,μmthe×
7612
total μm,
areathe total area
of image of image
acquisition was 4.63 cm2 ,was
acquisition and 4.63
43.27%cm2of, and
the 43.27%
exposedofsurface
the exposed
area was surface area
occupied,
was
whichoccupied,
was much which wasthan
larger muchthatlarger thanstudies
in other that in[15–21].
other studies [15–21]. The
The maximum maximum
corrosion depthcorrosion
could be
depth could
acquired by be acquiredthe
comparing by corrosion
comparing the corrosion
depth measureddepth measured
in different in different
areas. Therefore,areas. Therefore,
the method can
the
alsomethod
accuratelycan reflect
also accurately
the maximum reflectcorrosion
the maximum depthcorrosion depth of
of the corroded the corroded samples.
samples.

Figure 2. Schematic of image acquisition.

Figure 2. Schematic of image acquisition.
3. Results
3. Results
3.1. Weight Loss Tests
3.1. Weight Loss Tests
Figure 3 shows the macroscopic morphologies of the J55 carbon steel before corrosion test and after
the removal3ofshows
Figure the macroscopic
corrosion scales under morphologies of the pressures.
different CO2 partial J55 carbonLocalized
steel before corrosion
corrosion test and
occurred on
after the removal
the surface of the J55of carbon
corrosion scales
steel. under in
As shown different
Figure 4,CO 2 partial
the averagepressures.
corrosion rateLocalized
of the J55corrosion
carbon
occurred
steel afteron the surface
immersing in of the2 /crude
a CO J55 carbon steel. As
oil/brine shown in Figure
environment initially4,increased
the average andcorrosion rate of
then decreased
the
withJ55 carbon steel
increasing CO2after immersing
partial pressure in a COfinally
before 2/crude oil/brine environment
stabilizing. When the CO initially
2 partialincreased
pressure andwas
then decreased
increased from with increasing
0 to 1.5 MPa, theCO 2 partial rate
corrosion pressure
of J55before finally
increased stabilizing.
sharply. When the CO
The concentration partial
of2 H 2 CO 3
pressure
increasedwas as the increased from 0oftoCO1.5
partial pressure MPa,
2 was the corrosion
increased, rate of J55
which decreased the increased
system pHsharply. The
and therefore
concentration
increased the of H2CO3 increased
corrosion as the
rate [13–16]. Whenpartial
the pressure
CO2 partialof CO 2 was increased,
pressure was increasedwhich decreased
from 1.5 MPa the
to
system
5.0 MPa, pHthe
and therefore
corrosion increased
rate the corrosion
of J55 decreased. Withratethe[13–16].
continuous When the CO
increase in2 partial pressure
CO2 partial was
pressure,
increased
a protectivefrom 1.5 MPa
layer to 5.0 MPa,
gradually formed theon corrosion
the surfacerate of
of the
J55 decreased.
J55 carbonWith steel.the continuous
When the COincrease
2 partial
in CO2 partial
pressure pressure, from
was increased a protective
5.0 to 9.0 layer
MPa, gradually formed
the corrosion rateonofthe
J55surface of the
increased. TheJ55 carbon steel.
protective layer
When the CO partial pressure was increased from 5.0 to 9.0 MPa, the corrosion
formed on the surface of J55 may be dissolved gradually, thereby increasing the corrosion rate [14,15].
2 rate of J55 increased.
The
When protective
the CO2layer formed
partial on the
pressure wassurface of J55from
increased may 9.0be dissolved
MPa to 15.0 gradually,
MPa, the thereby increasing
corrosion rate oftheJ55
corrosion
was almost rate [14,15]. A
constant. When the CO
protective 2 partial
layer formedpressure wasthe
faster on increased fromas9.0
steel surface theMPa
CO2topartial
15.0 MPa, the
pressure
corrosion rate of J55 was almost constant. A protective layer formed faster on the steel surface as the
CO2 partial pressure was increased [17–19]. When CO2 dissolved in water equilibrium, CO2
Materials 2018, 11, 1765 5 of 15

Materials 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

Materials 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14
was increased [17–19]. When CO2 dissolved in water equilibrium, CO2 solubility almost no longer
solubilitywith
increased almost no longer increased
increasing with increasing COsystem
2 partial pressure. Thus,invariable
the system pHand
was
solubility almost no longerCO 2 partialwith
increased pressure. Thus,CO
increasing the pH was almost [25],
2 partial pressure. Thus, the system pH was
almost invariable
the protective layer [25], and
wasand the
notthe protective
dissolved. layer was not dissolved.
almost invariable [25], protective layer was not dissolved.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
Figure 3. Macroscopic morphologies of J55 carbon steel before corrosion test: (a) before corrosion test
Figure 3. Macroscopic
Macroscopicmorphologies
morphologiesofofJ55 carbon
J55 carbon steel before
steel corrosion
before test:test:
corrosion (a) before corrosion
(a) before test
corrosion
and after the removal of corrosion scales under different CO2 partial pressures; (b) Pco2 = 0 MPa; (c)
and after the removal of corrosion scales under different CO partial pressures; (b) Pco =
test and after the removal of corrosion scales under different CO2 partial pressures; (b) 2Pco2 = 0 MPa;
2 0 MPa; (c)
Pco2 = 1.5 MPa; (d) Pco2 = 5.0 MPa; (e) Pco2 = 9.0 MPa; and (f) Pco2 = 15.0 MPa.
Pco 2 =21.5
(c) Pco MPa;
= 1.5 (d)(d)
MPa; PcoPco
2 =2 5.0 MPa;
= 5.0 (e)(e)
MPa; Pco 2 =2 9.0
Pco MPa;
= 9.0 MPa; and (f)(f)
and Pco 2 =
Pco2=15.0 MPa.
15.0 MPa.

8
8
Average corrosion rate / mm·y -1
Average corrosion rate / mm·y
-1

6
6

4
4

The data of mass losses during the experiment

The data/ of
CO2 partial pressure mass losses
MPa 0.0 during
0.5 the experiment
1.0 1.5 2.5 3.0
2 CO2 partial
Mass pressure
loss weight // gMPa 0.0
0.0005 0.5
0.0050 1.0
0.1936 1.5
0.3863 2.5
0.3430 3.0
0.2734
2 Mass
CO2loss weight
partial /g
pressure / MPa0.0005 5.0
0.0050 7.0
0.1936 9.00.386311.00.343013.00.273415.0
CO2 partial
Mass pressure
loss weight // gMPa 5.0
0.2037 7.0
0.2306 9.0
0.3055 11.0
0.3071 13.0
0.3102 15.0
0.3091
Mass loss weight / g 0.2037 0.2306 0.3055 0.3071 0.3102 0.3091

0
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
CO2 partial pressure / MPa
CO2 partial pressure / MPa

Figure 4. Average corrosion rate determined by mass loss technique as a function of CO2 partial
Figure for
pressure 4. Average corrosion 30%
steel immersed rate crude
determined by mixtures.
mass loss technique as a function of CO2 partial
Figure 4. Average corrosioninrate oil/brine
determined by mass loss technique as a function of CO2 partial
pressure for steel immersed in 30% crude oil/brine mixtures.
pressure for steel immersed in 30% crude oil/brine mixtures.
3.2. Microstructure and Composition of the Corrosion Scale
3.2. Microstructure and Composition of the Corrosion Scale
3.2. Microstructure
Figures 5–9 show and Composition
the SEM images of the Corrosion Scale scales formed on the J55 steel surface as a
of the corrosion
functionFigures
of CO5–9 show the SEM images of the
2 show the SEM images of the corrosionmixtures
partial pressure in 30% crude corrosion
oil/brine scales at formed
the sameon the (×100as
J55 steel surface
magnification or a
Figures 5–9 scales formed on the J55 steel surface as a
×function
2000). EDS of CO
was2 partial
performed pressure
on theincorrosion
30% crude oil/brine
product mixtures
scales of the at the same
tested
function of CO2 partial pressure in 30% crude oil/brine mixtures at the same magnification (×100 or
samples. magnification
Table 3 shows (×100theor
×2000).
EDS EDSofwas
spectra performed
the corrosion on the
scale corrosion
in the product
inner surface scales
of the blueofline
the region
tested insamples.
FiguresTable 3 shows the
4–8, respectively.
×2000). EDS was performed on the corrosion product scales of the tested samples. Table 3 shows the
EDS spectra
Figure 5 shows of thethe
SEM corrosion
images ofscale in the inner
the corrosion scalessurface
formedof onthethe blue linesurface
J55 steel regionatinPco Figures
2 = 0 MPa 4–8,
EDS spectra
◦
of the corrosion scale in the inner surface of the blue line region in Figures 4–8,
respectively.
and 65 C. TheFigurepolishing5 shows
marksthe SEM imagesvisibleofonthe corrosion
surface ofscales formed on the J55 steel surface
respectively. Figure 5 shows thewere
SEMstillimages of thethecorrosion the J55
scales steel, and
formed on thenoJ55 visible
steel signs
surface of
at Pco2 =were
corrosion 0 MPa and 65on
observed °C.the
The polishing
sample. Themarks
corrosionwere still visible
product mainly on consisted
the surface ofof
FetheC J55
(the steel,
content
3 J55 steel, and and
at Pco2 = 0 MPa and 65 °C. The polishing marks were still visible on the surface of the
no visible signsC of corrosion were observed on the sample. The corrosion productfrommainly consisted
no visible signs of corrosion were observed on the sample. The corrosion product mainlythe
ratio of Fe and atoms is about 1:3) and minor constituents of alloying elements carbon
consisted
of Fe
steel 3C (theFigure
content6 ratio ofthe
Fe and Cimages
atoms of is about 1:3) andscales
minorformed
constituents of alloying elements
of Fe3matrix.
C (the content shows
ratio of Fe
◦matrix.
SEM
and C atoms the corrosion
is about 1:3) and minor on the
constituents of J55 steel surface
alloying elements at
from
Pco = the
1.5 carbon
MPa andsteel
65 C. The Figure
surface 6 shows
was the
severely SEM
attackedimagesand
2 the carbon steel matrix. Figure 6 shows the SEM images of the corrosion scales formed of the
showed corrosion
disperse scales
FeCO formed
3 and on
CaCO the
from on the3
J55 steel
scales surface
andsurface
minor at at Pco2 = 1.5
constituents of MPaMPa and
alloying 65 °C. fromThe the surface was severely attacked 7and showed
J55 steel Pco2 = 1.5 andelements
65 °C. The surfacecarbon
was steel matrix.
severely Figureand
attacked shows
showed the
◦ C.steel
disperse
SEM images FeCOof 3 and
the CaCO3 scales
corrosion scales and
formedminor on constituents
the J55 steel ofsurface
alloying at elements
Pco 2 = 5.0from
MPa the
and carbon
65 A
disperse FeCO3 and CaCO3 scales and minor constituents of alloying elements from the carbon steel
matrix.
large part Figure
of the 7surface
shows was the SEM
attackedimagesand offully
the corrosion
covered byscales
FeCO formed
3 and on
CaCO the .J55 steel
Figures surface
8 and 9 at Pco
show
matrix. Figure 7 shows the SEM images of the corrosion scales formed on the 3J55 steel surface at Pco2 2
= 5.0 MPa andof65the °C. A large scalespart of the surface was attacked and fully covered by FeCO and
= 5.0 MPa and 65 °C. A large part of the surface was attacked and atfully
the SEM images corrosion formed on the J55 steel surface Pco2covered
= 9.0 and by15FeCOMPa.3 3and
The
CaCO3was
surface . Figures
almost 8 and 9 show
covered by the SEM images
protective FeCOof the corrosion
layer and scales
few CaCOformed. At on
Pcothe =J55
15.0 steel
MPa,
3 on the2 J55 steel surface surface
the
CaCO3. Figures 8 and 9 show the SEM images of the3 corrosion scales formed
at Pco2 =product
corrosion 9.0 andlayer
15 MPa.
was The surface
thicker and was almost
denser than covered
that at Pcoby
2 = the
9.0 protective
MPa. FeCO3 layer and few
at Pco2 = 9.0 and 15 MPa. The surface was almost covered by the protective FeCO3 layer and few
CaCO3. At Pco = 15.0 MPa, the corrosion product layer was thicker and denser than that at Pco =
CaCO3. At Pco2 2= 15.0 MPa, the corrosion product layer was thicker and denser than that at Pco2 2=
9.0 MPa.
9.0 MPa.
Materials 2018, 11, 1765 6 of 15
Materials 2018,
Materials
Materials 2018, 11,
2018, 11, xxx FOR
11, FOR PEER
FOR PEER REVIEW
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 666 of
of 14
of 14
14

(a) (b)
Figure 5.
Figure
Figure 5. SEM
5. SEM images
SEM images of
images of corrosion
of corrosion scales
corrosion
corrosion scales formed
scales
scales formed on
formed
formed on the
on
on thesteel
the
the steel surface
steel
steel surfacein
surface
surface in30%
in
in 30%crude
30%
30% crudeoil/brine
crude
crude oil/brine mixtures
oil/brine
oil/brine mixtures
mixtures
at
at Pco222 ==== 000 MPa:
at Pco
Pco MPa: (a)
MPa: (a) ×
(a) ×100;
×100; (b)
100;(b)
×100; ×2000.
(b)×2000.
(b) ×2000.
×2000.
2

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 6.
Figure
Figure 6. SEM
6. SEM images
SEM images of
images of the
of the corrosion
the corrosion scales
scales formed
scales formed on
formed on the
on the steel
the
the steel surface
steel
steel surface in
surface
surface in 30%
in
in 30%crude
30%
30% crudeoil/brine
crude
crude oil/brine
oil/brine
oil/brine
mixtures at
mixtures
mixtures at Pco22 ====1.5
at Pco
Pco 1.5MPa:
1.5
1.5 MPa: (a)
MPa:
MPa: (a) ×
(a) ×100;
×100; (b)
100;(b)
×100; ×2000.
(b)×2000.
(b) ×2000.
×2000.
2

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure 7.
Figure 7. SEM
7.
7. SEM images of
SEM images
images of the
of the
the corrosion
corrosion scales
corrosion
corrosion scales formed
scales
scales formed on
formed
formed on the
on
on the steel
the
the steel surface
steel
steel surface in
surface
surface in 30%
in
in 30%crude
30%
30% crudeoil/brine
crude
crude oil/brine
oil/brine
oil/brine
mixtures
mixtures at
at
mixtures at Pco
Pco
at Pco == 5.0
5.0
Pco222 == 5.0
2 MPa:
MPa:
5.0 MPa: (a)
(a)
MPa: (a) × 100;
×100;
(a) ×100; (b)
(b)
×100; (b) × 2000.
×2000.
(b) ×2000.
×2000.
Materials 2018, 11, 1765 7 of 15
Materials
Materials 2018,
2018, 11,
11, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 77 of
of 14
14

(a) (b)
Figure 8.
Figure 8.
8. SEM
SEM images
images of the corrosion
of the corrosion scales
corrosion scales formed
scales formed on
formed on the
on the steel
the steel surface
steel surface in
surface in 30%
in 30% crude
30%crude oil/brine
crudeoil/brine
oil/brine
mixtures at Pco222 ===9.0
at Pco 9.0 MPa:
9.0MPa: (a)
(a) ×
MPa: (a) ×100;
100; (b)
×100; (b) ×2000.
(b) ×2000.
×2000.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 9. SEM images
9. SEM images ofof corrosion
corrosion scales
scales formed
scales formed on
formed on the
on thesteel
the steel surface
steel surfacein
surface in30%
in 30%crude
30% crudeoil/brine
crude oil/brine
oil/brine mixtures
mixtures
at Pco = 15.0
at Pco22 == 15.0 MPa:
15.0 MPa: (a) × 100;
MPa: (a) ×100; (b)
×100; (b) × 2000.
(b) ×2000.
×2000.
2

Table 3. EDS of the corrosion scale of immersion in 30% crude oil/brine mixtures under different CO2
Table
Table 3.3. EDS
EDS of
of the
the corrosion
corrosion scale
scale of
of immersion
immersion in
in 30%
30% crude
crude oil/brine
oil/brine mixtures
mixtures under
under different
different CO
CO22
partial pressures.
partial pressures.
partial pressures.
Pco2 = 0 MPa Pco2 = 1.5 MPa Pco2 = 5.0 MPa Pco2 = 9.0 MPa Pco2 = 15.0 MPa
Element (At. %) P
P == 00 MPa
MPa P
P == 1.5
1.5 MPa
MPa P
P == 5.0
5.0 MPa
MPa P
P == 9.0
9.0 MPa
MPa P
P == 15.0
15.0 MPa
MPa
Element
Element (At.
(At. %)
%) Whole Local Whole Local Whole Local Whole Local Whole Local
Whole
Whole Local Local Whole
Whole Local Local Whole
Whole Local Local Whole
Whole Local Local Whole
Whole Local
Local
CCK 75.70 76.23 37.34 33.40 50.29 33.25 27.87 18.66 63.00 62.49
CK K 75.70
75.70 76.23
76.23 37.34
37.34 33.40
33.40 50.29
50.29 33.25
33.25 27.87
27.87 18.66
18.66 63.00
63.00 62.49
62.49
OK 0.34 1.50 44.87 55.80 36.73 45.10 46.48 53.98 23.68 25.52
OO K
Si K
K
0.34
0.34
/
1.50
1.50
/
44.87
44.87
/
55.80
55.80
/
36.73
36.73
0.21
45.10
45.10
/
46.48
46.48
/
53.98
53.98
/
23.68
23.68
/
25.52
25.52
/
Si
CrK
Si K
K /// /// //
0.29 /// 0.21
0.21
/ /// /// /// /// / //
Ca K
Cr
Cr K
K /// /// 3.49
0.29
0.29 3.17
// /// 0.20
// 1.84
// 2.29
// 0.44
// 0.59//
Cl K
Ca K 0.14
// // 0.37
3.49 0.16
3.17 0.30
// 0.37
0.20 /
1.84 /
2.29 /
0.44 /
0.59
Ca
Mn K
K 0.40
/
0.30
3.49
0.54
3.17
0.35 0.14
0.20
0.28
1.84
/
2.29
/
0.44
/ /
0.59
Cl
Fe K
Cl K
K 0.14
0.14
23.42 //
21.97 0.37
0.37
13.10 0.16
0.16
7.12 0.30
0.30
12.33 0.37
0.37
20.80 //
23.81 //
25.07 /
12.88/ 11.40//
Mn
Mn K
total
K 0.40
100.0
0.40 0.30
100.0
0.30 0.54
100.0
0.54 0.35
100.0
0.35 0.14
100.0
0.14 0.28
100.0
0.28 /
100.0
/ //
100.0 /
100.0/ 100.0//
Fe
Fe KK 23.42
23.42 21.97
21.97 13.10
13.10 7.12
7.12 12.33
12.33 20.80
20.80 23.81
23.81 25.07
25.07 12.88
12.88 11.40
11.40
total
total 100.0
100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0
100.0
The main elements of the corrosion products in the 30% crude oil/brine environment without
CO2 were Fe and C, and the content ratio of iron and carbon atoms was about 1:3, indicating that
The main elements of the corrosion products in the 30% crude oil/brine environment without
the corrosion products consisted mainly of FeC3 . The main elements of the corrosion products in the
CO22 were Fe and C, and the content ratio of iron and carbon atoms was about 1:3, indicating that the
CO2 /30% crude oil/brine environment were O, Fe, and Ca, indicating that the corrosion products
corrosion products consisted mainly of FeC33. The main elements of the corrosion products in the
consisted mainly of FeC3 and mixed carbonate (Fex Ca1−x CO3 ) [26,27]. At Pco2 = 1.5 and 5.0 MPa,
CO22/30% crude oil/brine environment were O, Fe, and Ca, indicating that the corrosion products
consisted mainly of FeC33 and mixed carbonate (FexxCa1−x
1−xCO33) [26,27]. At Pco22 = 1.5 and 5.0 MPa, the
Materials 2018, 11, 1765 8 of 15

Materials 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14

the minor constituents of alloying elements from the carbon steel were detected, indicating that the
minor constituents of alloying elements from the carbon steel were detected, indicating that the
surface was not fully covered by the corrosion product layer. At Pco2 = 9.0 and 15.0 MPa, the minor
surface was not fully covered by the corrosion product layer. At Pco2 = 9.0 and 15.0 MPa, the minor
constituents of alloying elements from the carbon steel were not detected, suggesting that the surface
constituents of alloying elements from the carbon steel were not detected, suggesting that the surface
was fully covered by the corrosion product layer.
was fully covered by the corrosion product layer.
Figure 10 shows the XRD spectra of the surface layer on the corroded samples immersed
Figure 10 shows the XRD spectra of the surface layer on the corroded samples immersed in
in CO2 /30% crude oil/brine mixtures. Related research [15–21] reported that the main CO2
CO2/30% crude oil/brine mixtures. Related research [15–21] reported that the main CO2 corrosion
corrosion product of carbon steel is FeCO3 . The compositions of the corrosion product layer in
product of carbon steel is FeCO3. The compositions of the corrosion product layer in the CO2/30%
the CO2 /30% crude oil/brine mixtures were similar and mainly consisted of the complex salt of
crude oil/brine mixtures were similar and mainly consisted of the complex salt of CaCO3 and FeCO3.
CaCO3 and FeCO3 . This result may be attributed to the presence of metal cation isomorphous
This result may be attributed to the presence of 2+ metal cation isomorphous substitution in CO2
substitution in CO2 corrosion [27]. When the [Fe ] × [CO3 2− ] in the medium exceeds FeCO3
corrosion [27]. When the [Fe2+] × [CO32−] in the medium exceeds FeCO3 solubility product Ksp
solubility product Ksp (FeCO3 ), that is, when the FeCO3 supersaturation in the medium is
nh i h io  supersaturation in the medium is S = Fe2+ ×
S(FeCO
= 3Fe), 2+that
× CO is, 2−when
3/ K the
(FeCOFeCO
) 3> 1, the FeCO would be deposited on the metal surface.
sp 3 3
As 2-
shown
CO 3 / Kinspthe following
FeCO 3 > 1, form [27]: 3 would be deposited on the metal surface. As shown in the
the FeCO
following form [27]: Fe2+ +CO23− → FeCO3 (s) (2)
Fe + FeCO3 (s) 2+
CO2-
3→ (2)
The Ca2+ in the solution to the replacement in FeCO3 crystal Fe2+ and the formation of the Fe (Ca)
The Ca2+ can
CO3 complex in the
besolution
expressedto as
the replacement in FeCO3 crystal Fe2+ and the formation of the Fe (Ca)
CO3 complex can be expressed as
Ca2+ +2+FeCO3 (s) → Fe22++
+ CaCO3 (s) (3)
(3)
Ca + FeCO (s) → Fe +CaCO3 (s)

♦ FeCO3

• CaCO3

•
Pco2=2MPa
• • • ♦
♦• •
Intensity

•
Pco2=5MPa
• • • •

•
Pco2=9MPa
♦ ♦♦
♦
• • •• ♦

10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2θ（degree）

Figure 10. XRD

Figure 10. XRD spectra
spectra of
of surface
surface layer
layer on
on the
the corroded
corroded samples.
samples.
3.3. Maximum Corrosion Depth Tests
3.3. Maximum Corrosion Depth Tests
Figure 11 shows that the maximum corrosion depth of the cleaned sample surface exposed to
Figure 11 shows that the maximum corrosion depth of the cleaned sample surface exposed to
30% crude oil/brine condition at Pco2 = 1.0 MPa and 65 ◦ C was 237.753 µm. The maximum corrosion
30% crude oil/brine condition at Pco = 1.0 MPa and 65 °C was 237.753 μm. The maximum corrosion
depths measured in the seven other 2regions were compared, and the maximum corrosion depth of
depths measured in the seven other regions were compared, and the maximum corrosion depth of
the cleaned sample surface exposed to 30% crude oil/brine condition at Pco2 = 1.0 MPa and 65 ◦ C
the cleaned sample surface exposed to 30% crude oil/brine condition at Pco2 = 1.0 MPa and 65 °C
was 382.742 µm. As shown in Figure 12, the maximum corrosion depth of the cleaned sample surface
was 382.742 μm. As shown in Figure 12, the maximum corrosion depth of the cleaned sample
exposed to 30% crude oil/brine condition at Pco2 = 1.5 MPa and 65 ◦ C, where the average corrosion
surface exposed to 30% crude oil/brine condition at Pco = 1.5 MPa and 65 °C, where the average
rate was the highest, was 90.395 µm. The type of corrosion2 damage changed from localized corrosion
corrosion rate was the highest, was 90.395 μm. The type of corrosion damage changed from
to mesa corrosion. Figure 13 shows the maximum corrosion depth and penetration rate/average
localized corrosion to mesa corrosion. Figure 13 shows the maximum corrosion depth and
corrosion rate ratio of the J55 carbon steel surface after removal of the corrosion product layers by
penetration rate/average corrosion rate ratio of the J55 carbon steel surface after removal of the
using acid cleaning solution as a function of CO2 partial pressure in the 30% crude oil/brine mixtures.
corrosion product layers by using acid cleaning solution as a function of CO2 partial pressure in the
The maximum corrosion depth varied with the increase in CO2 partial pressure possibly because
30% crude oil/brine mixtures. The maximum corrosion depth varied with the increase in CO2 partial
of the protection conferred by the corrosion product layer. The variation trend of the penetration
pressure possibly because of the protection conferred by the corrosion product layer. The variation
rate/average corrosion rate ratio of the J55 carbon steel surface was the same as that of the maximum
trend of the penetration rate/average corrosion rate ratio of the J55 carbon steel surface was the same
as that of the maximum corrosion depth as the CO2 partial pressure was increased. The penetration
rate/average corrosion rate ratios were greater than 4, indicating that local corrosion occurred on the
Materials 2018, 11, 1765 9 of 15

corrosion depth
Materials 2018, as the
11, x FOR CO
PEER 2 partial pressure was increased. The penetration rate/average corrosion
REVIEW 9 of 14
Materials 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14
rate ratios were greater than 4, indicating that local corrosion occurred on the surface of the carbon
surface
steel ofofthe
[8,18].
surface Atthecarbon
Pco steel
2 = 1.0
carbon [8,18].
MPa,
steel the AtAtPco
corrosion
[8,18]. 2 = depth
Pco 1.0 MPa,
wasthe
thecorrosion depth was
largest at 382.742 µm,the largest
which at 382.742
corresponded
2 = 1.0 MPa, the corrosion depth was the largest at 382.742
μm,
toμm, which corresponded to 69.8504 mm/a. This penetration rate was considerably greaterthan
which
69.8504 corresponded
mm/a. This to 69.8504
penetration mm/a.
rate was This penetration
considerably rate
greater was
than considerably
the greater
weight-loss corrosion
than the
rate
the
weight-loss
(3.3058 mm · year −1 ) shown
corrosion rate (3.3058
in mm·year
Figure 3, −1) shown in Figure 3, thereby confirming local attack.
thereby confirming local attack.
weight-loss corrosion rate (3.3058 mm·year ) shown in Figure 3, thereby confirming local attack.
−1

(a)(a) (b)
(b) (c)(c)
Figure 11. Corrosion depth analysis on cleaned surface of the sample exposed to 30% crude oil/brine
Figure
Figure 11.11. Corrosion
Corrosion depth
depth analysis
analysis onon cleaned
cleaned surface
surface of of
thethe sample
sample exposed
exposed to to
30%30% crude
crude oil/brine
oil/brine
condition at Pco2 = 1.0 MPa and 65 ◦°C: (a) corrosion morphology; (b) corrosion depth distribution
condition at Pco
condition at Pco2 = = 1.0 MPa and 65 °C: (a) corrosion morphology; (b) corrosion depth
2 1.0 MPa and 65 C: (a) corrosion morphology; (b) corrosion depth distributiondistribution
contour diagram; and (c) corrosion depth distribution 3D diagram.
contour
contour diagram;
diagram; andand
(c)(c) corrosion
corrosion depth
depth distribution
distribution 3D3D diagram.
diagram.

(a)(a) (b)
(b) (c)(c)
Figure 12.
12. Corrosion depth analysis on the cleaned
cleaned surface of of the sample
sample exposed to to 30% crude
crude
Figure 12.Corrosion
Figure Corrosiondepth
depthanalysis
analysisononthethe cleanedsurface
surface ofthe
the sampleexposed
exposed to30%30% crude
oil/brine
oil/brine condition at Pco = 1.5 MPa and 65 °C:
◦ (a) corrosion morphology; (b) corrosion depth
oil/brinecondition
conditionatatPco22 = =1.5
Pco 2 1.5MPa
MPaandand6565 C:°C:(a)(a)corrosion
corrosionmorphology;
morphology;(b)(b)corrosion
corrosiondepth
depth
distribution contour
distribution contour diagram;
diagram; andand (c)
(c) corrosion
corrosion depth
depth distribution
distribution3D3Ddiagram.
diagram.
distribution contour diagram; and (c) corrosion depth distribution 3D diagram.
Penetration rate / Average corrosion rate ratio

25 400
ratio
rate ratio

25 400
Penetration rate / Average corrosion rate ratio
Penetration
Maximum rate
rate /depth
corrosion
Penetration / Average
Average corrosion
corrosion rate
rate ratio
ratio
corrosion rate

Maximum
Maximum corrosion
corrosion depth
depth 350
350
Maximum corrosion depth / μm

20
μm

20
depth // μm
Average corrosion

300
300
corrosion depth

15
15 250
rate // Average

250
Maximum corrosion

10 200
10 200
Penetration rate

150
Maximum

150
5
Penetration

5
100
100

0 50
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
CO2 partial pressure / MPa
. CO22 partial pressure / MPa
.
Figure 13. Maximum corrosion depth and penetration rate/average corrosion rate ratio of J55 carbon
Figure 13. Maximum corrosion depth and penetration rate/average corrosion rate ratio of J55 carbon
Figure
steel 13. Maximum
surface corrosion
as a function depth and
of CO partial penetration
pressure in 30% rate/average corrosion
crude oil/brine rate ratio of J55 carbon
mixtures.
steel surface as a function of CO22 partial pressure in 30% crude oil/brine mixtures.
steel surface as a function of CO2 partial pressure in 30% crude oil/brine mixtures.

4.4.Discussion
Discussion

4.1.
4.1.Variation
VariationofofpHpHwith
withCO 2 Partial Pressure
CO 2 Partial Pressure

As the CO 2 partial pressure was increased, the corrosion rate of the J55 carbon steel initially
As the CO2 partial pressure was increased, the corrosion rate of the J55 carbon steel initially
increased,
increased,decreased,
decreased,increased
increasedagain,
again,and
andthen
thenstabilized.
stabilized.This
Thisresult
resultisisdifferent
differentfrom
fromthe
thereport
reportofof
Materials 2018, 11, 1765 10 of 15

4. Discussion

4.1. Variation of pH with CO2 Partial Pressure

As the CO2 partial pressure was increased, the corrosion rate of the J55 carbon steel initially
increased, decreased, increased again, and then stabilized. This result is different from the
report of some scholars that the CO2 corrosion rate of carbon steel increases with increasing CO2
pressure [13,15,28]. G.A. Zhang [13] reported the corrosion rate of N80 carbon steel increases from
19.13 mm·year−1 to 23.91 mm·year−1 when the CO2 partial pressure increases from 5 MPa to 8 MPa.
When the samples were immersed in formation water for 96 h at 60 ◦ C and a rotational speed of
2 m·s− 1 . Zhang Y. The authors of [15] proposed that the corrosion rate of X65 carbon steel increases
from 1.64 mm·year−1 to 7.26 mm·year−1 when the samples are immersed in aqueous environment for
168 h at 80 ◦ C and 1–9.5 MPa. M. Seiersten [28] reported that the corrosion rates of X65 carbon steels in
aqueous CO2 conditions range within 1–6 mm·year−1 at 40 ◦ C and 7.5–9 MPa. The corrosion rate in
the literature is greater than that in the test. The difference may be attributed to the different tested
corrosion media and the obvious corrosion inhibition effect of crude oil that can greatly reduce the
corrosion rate of CO2 [9].
The acid value of crude oil is 0.107 mg KOH·g−1 , and crude oil would not substantially change
the system pH. The initial system pH is 6.5, and the change in pH is mainly caused by the dissolution
of CO2 in water. CO2 dissolves in water and forms carbonic acid in situ, and the acidity of the solution
increases, thereby decreasing the pH. The equilibrium relationship can be described this process:

H2 O
H+ + OH− , Kw (4)

CO2(aq) + H2 O
H+ + HCO3 − , Ka1 (5)

HCO3 −
H+ + CO3 2− , Ka2 (6)


Kw = xH+ xOH− γH+ γOH− , (7)


xH+ xHCO3 − γH+ γHCO3 −
Ka1 = , (8)
xCO2(aq) γCO2(aq)
 
xH+ xCO3 2− γH+ γCO3 2−
Ka2 = , (9)
xHCO3 − γHCO3 −
where Kw is the ionization constant of water, Ka1 is the first ionization constant of CO2 , Ka2 is the
secondary ionization constant of CO2 , x is the concentration of subscript ion, mol·L−1 , and γ is the
activity coefficient of subscript ion.
Stumm and Morgon [29] calculated the first and secondary ionization equilibrium constant of
CO2 in water, and Morshall and Franch [30] calculated the ionization equilibrium constant of water.

134737.5 9036500
log(Ka1 ) = − 2211.492 − 0.30004T + 785.768 log T − , (10)
T T2
24784.1 1713800
log(Ka2 ) = − 452.824 − 0.078515T + 162.47 log T − , (11)
T T2
 
3245.2 223620 39840000 1262.3 856410
log(Kw ) = −4.098 − + − + 13.956 − + log(ρ), (12)
T T2 T3 T T2
where T is the temperature of the system, K; P is the partial pressure of CO2 in the system, bar; and ρ
is the density of the system, g·cm−3 .
 Materials 2018, 11, 1765 11 of 15

Wiebe et al. [31,32] calculated the solubility of CO2 in water at 12–100 ◦ C, and assumed that the
solubility of CO2 in water was not related to the concentration of solution and pH value. Ziegler [33]
fitted the solubility data of Wiebe to the following empirical formula:
5
SCO2 = 4.11 − 4329.91
T + 9.20T×2 10 − 2.5 × 10−3 P + 3.75 TP − 951.30 TP2
(13)
−1.52 × 10−7 P2 + 0.34 ln( P)

where SCO2 is the total concentration of CO2 dissolved in water, mol·kg−1 .

The first ionization of the carbonated solution is the main reaction, and Ka1 is much larger than Kw
and K 2018,
Materialsa2
. When estimating the pH of the CO2 –H2 O system, the ionization of water and the secondary
11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14
ionization of carbonic acid can be neglected. Carbonic acid is a weak acid, and its xCO2 is much larger
than its
much xH+than
larger . In carbonate
its xH+ . Insolution,
carbonateexcept for CO
solution, except , theCO
2(aq) for concentration of other ions
2(aq), the concentration is negligible.
of other ions is
Carbonic acid is a dilute solution with an ionic activity coefficient of about 1. The density
negligible. Carbonic acid is a dilute solution with an ionic activity coefficient of about 1. The density of carbonic
ofacid is similar
carbonic acidtoisthat of pure
similar water,
to that and the
of pure density
water, of pure
and the water
density of slightly varies
pure water with temperature,
slightly varies with
then xH+ ≈ Sthen
temperature, CO2 . x
In +this
≈ Sway,
CO . x
InH + and
this pH
way, xare+ calculated
and pH as
are follows:
calculated as follows:
H 2 H
q
K a1
q
+ = Ka1 × x
xHx+H= = =Ka1 × ×2S, CO2 ,
SCO
a1 × x CO
CO
2(aq)
2(aq)
(14)
(14)

- log
pH−=log + × γ
( xHx+H× γHH++) =-
= log xH(+x −
− log log γH(+γ =+−) log H+ (. xH+ ).
= −xlog (15)
pH = H+ ) − log H (15)
Figure
Figure1414shows
showsthetheaverage
averagecorrosion
corrosionrate
rateand
andestimated
estimatedpH pHvalue
valueas asaafunction
functionofofCOCO2 2partial
partial
pressure in 30% crude oil/brine mixtures. The system pH decreased with increasing
pressure in 30% crude oil/brine mixtures. The system pH decreased with increasing CO2 partial CO 2 partial
pressure.
pressure.When
Whenthe theCOCO2 partial
2 partialpressure
pressurewaswassmall,
small,thethesystem
systempHpHdecreased
decreasedsignificantly
significantlywithwith
increasing CO partial pressure. When the CO partial pressure was high, the
increasing CO2 partial pressure. When the CO2 partial pressure was high, the pH of the system
2 2 pH of the system
decreased
decreasedinsignificantly
insignificantlywithwithincreasing
increasingCO CO2 2partial
partialpressure.
pressure.TheThedissolution
dissolutionofofCO CO 2 ininwater
2 watertoto
achieve
achieveequilibrium
equilibrium continued to toincrease
increasethe
theCO CO2 2 partial
partial pressure
pressure but but
the the
pH pH value
value almost almost
no no
longer
longer increased [25]. Therefore, the different average corrosion rates in 30% crude oil/brine
increased [25]. Therefore, the different average corrosion rates in 30% crude oil/brine with CO2 partial with
CO 2 partial
pressure pressure
were were
not only not only
caused caused
by pH by pH
changes butchanges but of
by a series bychemical
a series ofchanges.
chemical changes.

7.0
Average corrosion rate
7
pH value
6.5
Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ
6
Average corrosion rate / mm·y-1

6.0

5 5.5
pH value

4 5.0

3 4.5

4.0
2

3.5
1
3.0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
CO2 partial pressure / MPa

Figure 14. Average corrosion rate and estimated pH value as a function of CO2 partial pressure in 30%
Figure 14. Average corrosion rate and estimated pH value as a function of CO2 partial pressure in
crude oil/brine mixtures.
30% crude oil/brine mixtures.
4.2. Formation Mechanism of Localized Corrosion
4.2. Formation Mechanism of Localized Corrosion
With the change in CO2 partial pressure, the corrosion rate of the J55 carbon steel changed
With the in
significantly change in COoil/brine
30% crude 2 partial pressure,
mixtures, the corrosion
which ratethat
indicated of the
the J55 carbonmechanism
corrosion steel changedalso
significantly
changed. Figurein 30% 13crude
showsoil/brine mixtures,
the partition graphwhich indicated
of the corrosionthat theincorrosion
rate CO2 /30%mechanism also
crude oil/brine
changed.
mixtures Figure 13 shows
as the change the
in CO partition
2 partial graphWater-in-oil
pressure. of the corrosion rate in CO
and oil-in-water 2/30% crude
emulsions oil/brine
coexist in 30%
mixtures as the change
crude oil/brine in CO
mixtures, partial
and2 the ratiopressure. Water-in-oil
of oil-in-water andisoil-in-water
emulsion large. Crudeemulsions coexist
oil and water caninall
30% crudethe
moisten oil/brine mixtures,The
metal surface. andcrude
the ratio of oil-in-water
oil with corrosion emulsion
inhibitioniswaslarge.
notCrude
evenlyoiladsorbed
and water oncan
the
all moisten
metal the metal
surface, surface.
causing Thecorrosion.
localized crude oil with corrosion
As shown inhibition
in Figure was notmodels
14, corrosion evenly adsorbed on theto
were proposed
metal surface, causing localized corrosion. As shown in Figure 14, corrosion models were proposed
to clarify the influence of CO2 partial pressure on the mechanism of localized corrosion. The four
stages describing the formation of localized corrosion are as follows:
Model I (shown in Figure 15a): At Pco2 = 0–1.5 MPa, the corrosion rate increased rapidly with
the increase in CO2 partial pressure. When the CO2 partial pressure was small, the system pH
 Model III (shown in Figure 15c): At Pco2 = 5.0–9.0 MPa CO2, the corrosion rate increased with
increasing CO2 partial pressure, which is in good agreement with the literature [28]. With the increase
in CO2 partial pressure from 5 to 9.0 MPa, CO2 phase changed to a supercritical state, and the
solubility of CO2 in crude oil increased rapidly [35]. When the decrease in pH value promoted the
dissolution
Materials 2018, of protective layers, CO2 possibly transferred from crude oil to the aqueous 12
11, 1765 phase,
of 15
supplemented with consumed H+ dissolving the product layer [36]. Thus, the surface of carbon steel
was exposed to corrosive medium, and corrosion reaction was promoted [13,16]. The dissolution rate
clarify
of the influence
the corrosion of CO
product 2 partial
layer pressurethan
was greater on thethemechanism
precipitation ofrate
localized
as thecorrosion.
CO2 partial The four stages
pressure was
describing
increased. the formation of localized corrosion are as follows:
Model IV
Model I (shown
(shown inin
Figure
Figure15a): AtAt
15d): Pco 2 = 0–1.5
Pco MPa, the corrosion rate increased rapidly with the
2 = 9.0~15.0 MPa, the corrosion rate was almost constant
increase in CO
with the increase partial pressure. When the CO
2 in CO2 partial pressure. This result 2 partial
canpressure was small,
be attributed to thethe system pH decreased
almost-constant system
significantly with increasing CO 2 partial pressure, similar to the estimated pH
pH value (about 3.10–3.14), as shown in Figure 14. At the initial stage of the experiment, the metal value shown in Figure 14.
The concentration
surface suffered strong of H2localized
CO3 increased withThe
corrosion. increasing
productionCO2 and
partial pressure,ofwhich
dissolution accelerated
corrosion scale werethe
cathodic reactions, increased the corrosion rate [13–16], and finally increased the Fe 2+ content. The
carried out simultaneously. Finally, a dense, complete, and protective corrosion product layer
corrosion
formed scale precipitated
rapidly on the metaland the scattered
surface. Yoon-Seokcorrosion
Choi et scale appeared
al. [18] on the surface,
also obtained similarbut the solubility
results, i.e., the
corrosion rates of L80 in 25 wt.% NaCl solution started out high but ended up being very6b.
products of FeCO 3 and CaCO 3 increased because the pH decreased, as shown in Figure lowPitting
at 90
may also occur locally due to the presence of crude oil and Cl − [9].
°C and 12 MPa CO2 pressure. Pitting may occur under dense protective layer, as shown in Figure 13.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 15. Schematic models for the localized
localized corrosion ofof J55
J55 steel
steel in
in the
thedifferent
differentCO
CO22/30%
/30% crude
oil/brine
oil/brinemixtures:
mixtures:(a)
(a)model
modelI:I:generating
generatingscattered
scatteredcorrosion
corrosionscale (Pco22 == 0.5–1.5
scale (Pco 0.5–1.5 MPa);
MPa); (b) model
gradually generating
II: gradually generating protective
protective corrosion
corrosion scale (Pco22 == 1.5–5.0
1.5–5.0 MPa); (c) (c) model III: dissolving
protective corrosion
corrosionscale
scale(Pco
(Pco2 2= =5.0–9.0 MPa);
5.0–9.0 and
MPa); (d)(d)
and model
modelIV: generating
IV: generating protective corrosion
protective scale
corrosion
(Pco2 (Pco
scale = 9.0–15.0 MPa).MPa).
2 = 9.0–15.0

Model II (shown in Figure 15b): At Pco2 = 1.5–5.0 MPa, the corrosion rate decreased with
increasing CO2 partial pressure. At the initial stage of the experiment, the metal surface suffered
strong localized corrosion. This result is consistent with the conclusions of many researchers [5,13–16].
The Fe2+ concentration increased and acidic concentration decreased rapidly on the steel surface. The
nucleation and growth of FeCO3 typically start on the steel surface where the pH and FeCO3 saturation
values are the highest [34]. The FeCO3 layer restricted the transport of H+ in and Fe2+ out; thus, the
corrosion rate decreased with the increase in CO2 partial pressure. The reduction of the system pH
value also dissolved the corrosion scale, but the dissolution rate of the corrosion product layer was
lower than the precipitation rate as the CO2 partial pressure was increased.
Model III (shown in Figure 15c): At Pco2 = 5.0–9.0 MPa CO2 , the corrosion rate increased with
increasing CO2 partial pressure, which is in good agreement with the literature [28]. With the increase
in CO2 partial pressure from 5 to 9.0 MPa, CO2 phase changed to a supercritical state, and the solubility
of CO2 in crude oil increased rapidly [35]. When the decrease in pH value promoted the dissolution
of protective layers, CO2 possibly transferred from crude oil to the aqueous phase, supplemented
Materials 2018, 11, 1765 13 of 15

with consumed H+ dissolving the product layer [36]. Thus, the surface of carbon steel was exposed to
corrosive medium, and corrosion reaction was promoted [13,16]. The dissolution rate of the corrosion
product layer was greater than the precipitation rate as the CO2 partial pressure was increased.
Model IV (shown in Figure 15d): At Pco2 = 9.0~15.0 MPa, the corrosion rate was almost constant
with the increase in CO2 partial pressure. This result can be attributed to the almost-constant system
pH value (about 3.10–3.14), as shown in Figure 14. At the initial stage of the experiment, the metal
surface suffered strong localized corrosion. The production and dissolution of corrosion scale were
carried out simultaneously. Finally, a dense, complete, and protective corrosion product layer formed
rapidly on the metal surface. Yoon-Seok Choi et al. [18] also obtained similar results, i.e., the corrosion
rates of L80 in 25 wt.% NaCl solution started out high but ended up being very low at 90 ◦ C and
12 MPa CO2 pressure. Pitting may occur under dense protective layer, as shown in Figure 13.

5. Conclusions
Based on the observed corrosion behavior of J55 carbon steel in different CO2 /30% crude oil/brine
mixtures at 65 ◦ C, we conclude the following:
(1) The corrosion rate sharply increased as the CO2 partial pressure was increased from 0 to
1.5 MPa, decreased from Pco2 = 1.5 MPa to Pco2 = 5.0 MPa, increased again at Pco2 = 5.0 MPa, and
then reached a constant value after Pco2 = 9.0 MPa.
(2) In 30% crude oil/brine mixtures, the surface of J55 carbon steel was covered by FeCO3 and
CaCO3 . The surface of the J55 carbon steel suffered localized corrosion in different CO2 /30% crude
oil/brine mixtures at 65 ◦ C.
(3) The system pH initially decreased, rapidly increased, and then stabilized as CO2 partial
pressure was increased. The CO2 partial pressure changed the system pH and CO2 solubility in crude
oil, which further affected the formation and protection performance of the corrosion product layer.

Author Contributions: H.B., Y.W. and Q.Z. conceived and designed the experiments; H.B. and Y.M. analyzed the
data and wrote the paper; H.B., Y.W., H.B. and N.Z. proposed the corrosion model.
Acknowledgments: This research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number
51504193 and the Key Laboratory Research Project of Shaanxi Education Department, grant number 15JS090.
Authors are thankful to Experiment Center of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, Xi’an Shiyou University
for providing all necessary facilities to undertake the work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
1. Uddin, M.; Jafari, A.; Perkins, E. Effects of mechanical dispersion on CO2 storage in Weyburn CO2 -EOR
field-numerical history match and prediction. Int. J. Greenh. Gas. Control 2013, 16, S35–S49. [CrossRef]
2. Barnes, D.; Harrison, B.; Grammer, G.M.; Asmus, J. CO2 -EOR and geological carbon storage resource
potential in the Niagaran pinnacle reef trend, lower Michigan, USA. Energy Procedia 2013, 37, 6786–6799.
[CrossRef]
3. Choi, J.W.; Nicot, J.P.; Hosseini, S.A.; Clift, S.J.; Hovorka, S.D. CO2 recycling accounting and EOR operation
scheduling to assist in storage capacity assessment at a U.S. gulf coast depleted reservoir. Int. J. Greenh. Gas.
Control 2013, 18, 474–484. [CrossRef]
4. Wang, Z.J.; Cates, M.E.; Langan, R.T. Seismic monitoring of a CO2 flood in a carbonate reservoir: A rock
physics study. Geophysics 1998, 63, 1604–1617. [CrossRef]
5. Choi, Y.S.; Nesic, S. Effect of impurities on the corrosion behavior of CO2 transmission pipeline steel in
supercritical CO2 -water environments. Environ. Sci Technol. 2010, 44, 9233–9238. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Water Quality Standard and Practice for Analysis of Oilfield Injecting Waters in Clastic Reservoirs; SY/T 5329-2012;
National Energy Administration: Beijing, China, 2012.
7. Preparation, Installation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Corrosion Coupons in Oilfield Operations; NACE
RP0775-2005; NACE International: Houston, TX, USA, 2005.
Materials 2018, 11, 1765 14 of 15

8. Farelas, F.; Choi, Y.S.; Nesic, S. Corrosion behavior of deep water oil production tubing material under
supercritical CO2 environment: Part 2-effect of crude oil and flow. Corrosion 2013, 70, 137–145. [CrossRef]
9. Sun, J.B.; Sun, C.; Zhang, G.A.; Zhao, W.B.; Wang, Y. Effect of water cut on the localized corrosion behavior
of P110 tube steel in supercritical CO2 /oil/water environment. Corrosion 2016, 72, 1470–1482. [CrossRef]
10. Wei, L.; Pang, X.L.; Gao, K.W. Effects of crude oil on the corrosion behavior of pipeline steel under wet CO2
conditions. Mater. Perform. 2015, 54, 58–62.
11. Efird, K.D.; Jasinski, R.J. Effect of the crude oil on corrosion of steel in crude oil/brine production. Corrosion
1989, 2, 165–171. [CrossRef]
12. Lin, G.; Bai, Z.; Zhao, X. Effect of temperature and pressure on the morphology of carbon dioxide corrosion
scales. Corrosion 2006, 62, 501–507. [CrossRef]
13. Zhang, G.A.; Liu, D.; Li, Y.Z.; Guo, X.P. Corrosion behavior of N80 carbon steel in formation water under
dynamic supercritical CO2 condition. Corros. Sci. 2017, 120, 107–120. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, Y.C.; Pang, X.L.; Qu, S.P.; Li, X.; Gao, K.W. The relationship between fracture toughness of CO2
corrosion scale and corrosion rate of X65 pipeline steel under supercritical CO2 condition. Int. J. Greenh. Gas.
Control 2011, 5, 1643–1650. [CrossRef]
15. Zhang, Y.C.; Pang, X.L.; Qu, S.P.; Li, X.; Gao, K.W. Discussion of the CO2 corrosion mechanism between low
partial pressure and supercritical condition. Corros. Sci. 2012, 59, 186–197. [CrossRef]
16. Cui, Z.D.; Wu, S.L.; Li, C.F.; Zhu, S.L.; Yang, X.J. Corrosion behavior of oil tube steels under conditions of
multiphase flow saturated with super-critical carbon dioxide. Mater. Lett. 2004, 58, 1035–1040. [CrossRef]
17. Mustafa, A.H.; Angeles, C.B; Ismail, M.C. Inhibition of CO2 corrosion of X52 steel by imidazoline-based
inhibitor in high pressure CO2 -water environment. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2013, 22, 1748–1755. [CrossRef]
18. Choi, Y.S.; Farelas, F.; Neši, S.; Magalhães, A.A.O.; Andrade, C.D.A. Corrosion behavior of deep water oil
production tubing material under supercritical CO2 environment: Part 1-effect of pressure and temperature.
Corrosion 2014, 70, 38–47. [CrossRef]
19. Choi, Y.S.; Nešić, S. Determining the corrosive potential of co transport pipeline in high pco–water
environments. Int. J. Greenh. Gas. Control 2011, 5, 788–797. [CrossRef]
20. Nesic, S. Effects of multiphase flow on internal CO2 corrosion of mild steel pipelines. Energy Fuels 2012, 26,
4098–4111. [CrossRef]
21. Nesic, S.; Lunde, L. Carbon dioxide corrosion of carbon steel in two-phase flow. Corrosion 1994, 50, 717–727.
[CrossRef]
22. Gozalpour, F.; Ren, S.R.; Tohidi, B. CO2 EOR and storage in oil reservoir. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 2005, 60,
537–546. [CrossRef]
23. Hao, H.; Hou, J.; Zhao, F.; Song, Z.; Hou, L.; Wang, Z. Gas channeling control during CO2 immiscible
flooding in 3D radial flow model with complex fractures and heterogeneity. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2016, 146,
890–901. [CrossRef]
24. Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens; ASTM G-03; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1999.
25. Roosen, C.; Ansorge, S.M.; Mang, T.; Leitner, W.; Greiner, L. Gaining pH-control in water/carbon dioxide
biphasic systems. Green Chem. 2007, 9, 455–458. [CrossRef]
26. Esmaeely, S.N.; Choi, Y.S.; Young, D.; Nesic, S. Effect of calcium on the formation and protectiveness of iron
carbonate layer in CO2 corrosion. Corrosion 2013, 69, 912–920. [CrossRef]
27. Esmaeely, S.N.; Young, D.; Brown, B.N.; Nesic, S. Effect of incorporation of calcium into Iron carbonate
protective layers in CO2 corrosion of mild steel. Corrosion 2017, 73, 238–246. [CrossRef]
28. Seiersten, M. Material selection for separation, transportation and disposal of CO2 corrosion. In Proceedings
of the Corrosion Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 11–16 March 2001.
29. Stumm, W.; Morgan, J.J. Aquatic chemistry: Chemical equilibria and rates in natural waters. J. Chem. Educ.
1996, 73, A277.
30. Marshall, W.L.; Franck, E.U. Ion product of water substance, 0–1000 ◦ C, 1–10000 bars new international
formulation and its background. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 1981, 10, 295–304. [CrossRef]
31. Wiebe, R. The binary system carbon dioxide-water under pressure. Chem. Rev. 1941, 29, 475–481. [CrossRef]
32. Harned, S.H.; Raymond, D.J. The ionization constant of carbonic acid in water and the solubility of carbon
dioxide in water and aqueous salt solutions from 0 to 50◦ . J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1943, 65, 2030–2037. [CrossRef]
Materials 2018, 11, 1765 15 of 15

33. Ziegler, K.J.; Hanrahan, J.P.; Glennon, J.D.; Holmes, J.D. Producing ‘pH switches’ in biphasic water-CO2
systems. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2003, 27, 109–117. [CrossRef]
34. Farelas, F.; Galicia, M.; Brown, B.; Nesic, S.; Castaneda, H. Evolution of dissolution processes at the interface
of carbon steel corroding in a CO2 environment studied by EIS. Corros. Sci. 2010, 52, 509–517. [CrossRef]
35. Liu, Z.M.; Yang, G.Y.; Lu, Y.; Han, B.X.; Yan, H.K. Phase equilibria of the CO2 —Jiangsu crude oil system
and precipitation of heavy components induced by supercritical CO2 . J. Supercrit. Fluids 1999, 16, 27–31.
[CrossRef]
36. Jalal, F.; Mahmoud, J. The physics of CO2 transfer during carbonated water injection into oil reservoirs: from
non-equilibrium core-scale physics to field-scale implication. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2018, 166, 798–805.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).