Well construction and durability: which measure listed below does not reduce the rate of corrosion of well pipes?

Introduction / Context:
Corrosion in wells arises from electrochemical reactions influenced by oxygen, carbon dioxide, salinity, flow velocity, and microbiology. Mitigation strategies target the corrosion rate; some measures only increase service life without changing the underlying corrosion kinetics.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Options include hydraulic and structural interventions.
• We must pick the measure that does not reduce the corrosion rate.

Concept / Approach:
Lowering drawdown/pumping decreases oxygenated water entry and aggressive conditions; reducing velocity mitigates erosion–corrosion; larger screen open area lowers entrance velocity and head losses—each can reduce corrosion rate. Using thicker pipes does not reduce the rate; it merely provides a thicker sacrificial wall, delaying failure.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess whether each option changes the corrosion environment or kinetics. Identify that thickness changes capacity to withstand loss, not the reaction rate. Therefore, “Using thicker pipes” does not reduce corrosion rate.

Verification / Alternative check:
Service records show thicker sections last longer at the same corrosion rate but pits still propagate at similar mm/year—confirming kinetics are unchanged.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Reducing drawdown/pumping: less oxygen/CO2 ingress, lower corrosion drivers.
• Reducing flow velocity: mitigates erosion–corrosion synergy.
• Increasing screen area: reduces localized high velocities and differential aeration.
• None of these: incorrect because one measure clearly does not reduce the rate.

Common Pitfalls:

• Equating longer life (thickness) with reduced corrosion rate.

Final Answer:
Using thicker pipes to resist wall loss.