Iron Sulfide Scale Dissolution at
High-Pressure, High Temperature
Dr. Tao Chen, Dr. Qiwei Wang, Dr. Fauken F. Chang and Dr. Yahya T. Al-Janabi
ABSTRACT
While a thin film of iron sulfide scale is generally considered
beneficial for sour corrosion protection, a thick layer of scale
deposit is detrimental to efficient and safe well operations
in the oil and gas industry. Iron sulfide scale has been a
persistent problem in Khuff sour gas wells since their early
production days. These wells were completed with low car-
bon mild steel, and the produced fluids usually contain high
levels of acidic hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon dioxide
(CO2) gases. Deposits on downhole tubulars affect well de-
liverability, interfere with well surveillance and restrict well
intervention. Phase analyses show that the deposits usually
consist of a wide range of scale minerals, which include dif-
ferent forms of iron sulfide, iron oxides and oxyhydroxides,
as well as calcium carbonate and iron carbonate. Attempts
have been made to determine the deposition mechanism
based on scale mineralogy and structure. Meanwhile, exten-
sive work has been carried out to identify effective dissolvers
for scale removal. Dissolvers based on concentrated hydro-
chloric (HCl) acid have high dissolving power, but they also
have limited applicability due to overwhelming drawbacks
such as corrosion and H2S generation. Therefore, alternative
dissolvers with low corrosivity and slow H2S evolution are
Fig. 1. Scale formed in a Khuff sour gas well, including (left) scale deposited in a downhole tubular, and (right) scale deposited in a topside flow line.
Fig. 1. Scale formed in a Khuff sour gas well, including (left) scale deposited in a downhole tubular, and
(right) scale deposited in a topside flow line. SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY WINTER 2016 47
highly desirable.
This article presents the latest laboratory results from
an evaluation of recently developed iron sulfide dissolvers.
The dissolvers were studied for their dissolving effectiveness
against iron sulfide scale solids and for the rate of their cor-
rosion of mild steel at an elevated temperature. Based on
these results, future developments for iron sulfide dissolvers
are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
The Ghawar oil field, located about 100 km southwest of
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, is by far the world’s biggest oil field
in terms of both reserves and production. It has a dimension
of 280 km by 30 km1. It was discovered in the late 1940s,
and first oil production was brought onstream in 19512.
The Ghawar field also holds massive gas reserves at greater
depths. A deep gas condensate development program was
started in the early 1980s with initial gas production from
a prolific sour carbonate reservoir (Khuff). During the early
stages of production, the developed gas reservoirs in the
southern area had a temperature range of 120 °C to 170 °C
and a high pressure of over 8,000 psi.
The produced gas contains up to 20% hydrogen sulfide
 (H2S), with an average of ~5% H2S, and 0.5% to 4.0%
carbon dioxide (CO2). The produced water is a mixture of
vapor condensate and formation water, with total dissolved
solids up to 300,000 mg/l. The average water production
rate is very low, often in the range of 2 bbl per million
standard cubic feet per day (MMscfd) of gas. The produced
hydrocarbon condensate rate is between 20 bbl per MMscfd
and 300 bbl per MMscfd. Low alloy carbon steel T-95,
which contains 0.5% to 1.0% Cr, 0.2% Ni and 0.2% Mo,
has been used for well completions in the Khuff as a cost-ef-
fective option3. No subsurface chemical treatment program
has been implemented to date for controlling corrosion and
scale.
Scale deposition has been one of the major issues for the
Khuff sour gas wells in the last few decades. Scale that is
deposited in downhole tubulars and topside pipelines causes
significant production and operational problems, such as
restriction of downhole surveillance and intervention, and
leads to significant losses of gas production4. Figure 1 shows
the typical scale deposited in the downhole tubulars and top-
side pipelines of Khuff wells1, 5.
Scale formation differs significantly from well to well in
terms of severity and chemical composition; it also varies
with depth in the same well . Most deposits are a mixture of
5 in less than half of the analyzed samples. Greigite is the least
different types of minerals. Figure 2 is a graph of the typical
scale compositions in the Khuff sour wells. As iron sulfide
scale is the predominant mineral found in most scale samples
a Khuff
analyzed, sour
it is the maingas well,
focus including
in this study. (left) scale deposited
deposited
Bothinchemical
a topside andflow line. methods have been used to
mechanical
remove downhole iron sulfide scale in these wells6-8. Hydro-
chloric (HCl) acid based scale dissolvers were used in several
descaling jobs. Although they were often effective in remov-
ing deposits9, their heavy corrosion of the production string
Fig. 3. Phases of iron sulfide
Fig. 2. Typical scale composition in Khuff sour wells.
.
48 WINTER 2016 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY
and casing, along with the generation of H2S during descal-
ing jobs, raised major concerns and barriers to their further
use. Alternative dissolvers, however, usually have limited
dissolving powers.
This article presents the latest laboratory results from an
evaluation of new iron sulfide dissolvers. The recently devel-
oped dissolvers were studied for their dissolving effectiveness
against iron sulfide minerals, and for the rate of their corro-
sion of mild steel at elevated temperatures and high pressure.
Future developments for iron sulfide dissolvers are discussed.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Scale Solids
Most iron sulfide scales deposited in Khuff wells are in
the form of iron mono-sulfide phases, such as pyrrhotite
(Fe1-xS), troilite (FeS) and mackinawite (Fe1+xS), Fig. 35. The
iron-deficient Fe1-xS is the most abundant phase. On average,
it accounts for more than half of iron sulfide scales (58%),
followed by FeS (13%) and Fe1+xS (11%). Pyrite and marca-
site, which have the same chemical composition (FeS2), have
a combined average scale contribution of 15%. They occur
common iron sulfide phase. It is found only in a few wells
and accounts for only about 3% of the iron sulfide scale on
average. As Fe1-xS is the predominant iron sulfide form found
inscale,
at field a downhole tubular,
it was used andthe dissolving perfor-
to measure
mance of the iron sulfide scale dissolvers in this screening
study.
The Fe1-xS samples used in this study were prepared from
commercial Fe1-xS supplied by VWR. Fe1-xS chips were pul-
verized, and powders from 0.85 mm to 2.0 mm in size were
scaleoftypically
Fig. 3. Phases iron sulfide deposited
scale typically on downhole
deposited tubulars
on downhole ininKhuff wells.
tubulars
Khuff wells.
 Code pH Chemistry
SD-A <0 15% HCl acid
SD-B <0 Strong acid
SD-C 2-5 THPS
SD-D 2-5 THPS
SD-E 2-5 Acidic chelate
SD-F 2-5 THPS
SD-G 2-5 THPS
SD-H 5-7 pH neutralized chelate
SD-I 5-7 pH neutralized chelate
SD-J >12 Alkaline dissolver
SD-K >12 Alkaline dissolver

Fig. 4. Microscopic image of Fe1-xS particles used in the study. Table 1. Basic chemistry and pH of candidate scale dissolvers
Fig. 4. Microscopic image of Fe1-xS particles used in the study.
collected, Fig. 4. The samples were washed repeatedly by For the dissolving tests, 30 ml of dissolver and 3 grams of
de-ionized water to remove fine particles, and then dried in pulverized Fe1-xS were used. The tests were carried out at
open air before use. 125 °C in an autoclave. The total test duration was 6 hours,
including 1 hour of heating in the autoclave from room
Dissolver Solutions temperature to 125 °C, 4 hours at the test temperature, and
Saudi Aramco: Company General Use
1 hour of cooling, depressurizing and disassembling. Tests
The ideal iron sulfide scale dissolver should not only re- were also performed using test tubes without external ap-
Code pH Chemistry
move scale deposits in downhole tubulars to restore well plied pressure. At the SD-A
end of the tests conducted at 1,000 psi,
<0 15% HCl acid
accessibility and productivity, but also cause no damage to the spent scale dissolvers
SD-Bwere collected
<0 for further
Strongcorrosion
acid
well integrity and pose no safety concerns. Considering the tests. SD-C 2-5 THPS
aggressive nature of HCl acid, non-HCl acid based dissolv- SD-D performance,
To calculate dissolving 2-5 the solidsTHPSwere
ers are desired to alleviate damage and safety concerns. The filtrated out and rinsed with de-ionized water Acidic
SD-E 2-5 chelate
to remove re-
SD-F 2-5 THPS
ideal iron sulfide scale dissolver should have the following sidual dissolver. The collected solids were then dried at 80
SD-G 2-5 THPS
characteristics: °C overnight. The amount
SD-H of dissolved
5-7 Fe1-xpH
S neutralized
was calculated
chelate
from the weight difference
SD-I between5-7the initial and finalchelate
pH neutralized sol-
• A dissolving capacity comparable to that of concen- ids, which were measuredSD-J with an>12
analytical Alkaline
balance.dissolver
trated HCl acid. SD-K >12 Alkaline dissolver

• Low corrosivity against mild steel completions; the Corrosion Test

Table 1. Basic chemistry and pH of candidate scale dissolvers
metal loss should be < 0.05 lb/ft2 during descaling
Mild steel C1018 coupons were used for the corrosion tests.
treatment.
They were rinsed with distilled water and acetone, and then
• No free H2S gas released after dissolving the iron sul- air dried before and after the tests. Corrosivity was assessed
fide scales.
• Stable at high downhole temperatures (up to 160 °C).

Extensive efforts have been made to identify alternative

dissolvers. Following a previous study5, a wide range of
commercial dissolvers has been evaluated in the last three
years. This article reports on 10 of these typical and new
iron sulfide scale dissolvers, all with different pH values and
basic chemistry, Table 1; dissolver SD-A, which is 15 wt%
HCl acid, is included in the study for comparison. Among
these iron sulfide scale dissolvers are different types of acids,
tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate (THPS), low
pH chelate, pH neutralized chelate and alkaline dissolvers.

Scale Dissolving Test

Fig. 5. Amount of dissolved Fe S at 125 °C.
1-xS at 125 °C.
Fig. 5. Amount of dissolved Fe1-x

SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY WINTER 2016 49

 by the changes in coupon weight after 4 hours immersed in
the dissolvers — both live scale dissolver and spent scale dis-
solver solutions for each candidate — at 125 °C. The corro-
sivity of the live dissolvers was further tested at 150 °C.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Scale Dissolving Test at 125 °C
Figure 5 summarizes the scale dissolving test results at 125
°C. SD-A (15% HCl acid) showed the highest dissolving
capacity among the tested dissolvers, with ~1.95 g Fe1-xS
dissolved. SD-B (strong acid with pH < 0) achieved good
dissolution with ~1.33 g dissolved Fe1-xS. The weight losses
for the other dissolvers were between 0.1 g and 0.5 g. SD-E
(acidic chelate), SD-F (THPS), SD-G (THPS) and SD-K
(alkaline) had very low dissolving power, with less than
0.1 g Fe1-xS dissolved. SD-D (THPS), SD-J (alkaline), SD-C
(THPS), SD-H (pH neutralized chelate) and SD-I (pH neu-
tralized chelate) showed better performance, with dissolution
amounts of ~0.41 g, ~0.38 g, ~0.36 g, ~0.27 g and ~0.21 g,
respectively.
Figure 6 shows the relationship between the dissolver
pH and its dissolution capacity. Strong acids (pH < 0), rep-
resented by SD-A and SD-B, gave the highest dissolution
performance. Mild acidic dissolvers (pH 2 to 7), represented
by SD-C to SD-I, showed a medium dissolution capacity.
SD-K, which has the highest pH, gave the lowest dissolution
performance. Generally, the lower the pH, the higher the
dissolution capacity. Test results also indicated that other
factors, especially dissolver chemistry and concentration, are
important. For example, while SD-J has a pH of ~13, it gave
a better dissolution performance than most of the tested dis-
solvers with a pH between 2 and 7.
Effect of Pressure on Dissolution Performance
The tests were carried out at 125 °C under different pres-
sures, from ambient to 4,000 psi, to study the effect of pres-
sure on the dissolution performance. The results are shown
in Fig. 7. In general, no significant change is observed with
changes in test pressure: The performance rankings of the
tested scale dissolvers are the same at all pressures tested.
A small change is noted with SD-A, where the amount of
Fe1-xS dissolved decreased from 2.1 g to 1.7 g when pressure
increased from ambient to 4,000 psi. For the other scale dis-
solvers, the test pressure did not show a major effect on the
dissolving performance.

Corrosion Tests

Corrosion tests were carried out at 125 °C over 4 hours by

immersing coupons in live dissolver and spent dissolver solu-
tions of each candidate. The spent dissolvers were collected
from the iron sulfide dissolving test conducted at 1,000 psi.
The results are summarized in Fig. 8.
As shown in Fig. 8, SD-A, SD-B, SD-C and SD-D in the
live scale dissolver solutions were highly corrosive against
the mild steel C1080 coupon at 125 °C. Weight loss caused
by these dissolvers exceeds the corrosivity requirement — <
0.05 lb/ft2 during a 4-hour test. The other tested scale dis-
Fig.6.6.pH
Fig. pHofofscale
scaledissolvers
dissolvers vs.
vs. dissolved
dissolved Fe
Fe1-x1-xS.S.
Fig. 6. pH of scale dissolvers vs. dissolved Fe1-xS.

Fig.7.7.Effect
Effectofofpressure
pressure on
on Fe
Fe1-x S dissolution at 125 °C.
1-x S dissolution at 125 °C.
Fig. 8. Corrosion
Fig. 8. Corrosion rate
rateatat125
125°C
°Cafter
after44hours
hoursininlive
liveand
and spent
spent dissolver
dissolver solutions.
solutions.
Fig.

50 7. Effect
Fig. WINTER 2016 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF
of pressure on Fe1-xS dissolution atTECHNOLOGY
125 °C.
 Fig. 10. pH of live dissolvers vs. corrosion rate at 125 °C over 4 hours.

solvers showed less corrosion, with metal loss of < 0.05 lb/
ft2, especially SD-I, SD-J and SD-K, which had a corrosion
rate less than 0.01 lb/ft2.
Compared to the corrosion caused by the live dissolv-
ers, the solutions of spent dissolvers in most cases showed
Blank SD-A SD-B
a reduced corrosivity against the test carbon steel coupon.
Their ability to corrode carbon steel, therefore, is partially
consumed by the dissolution reaction with Fe1-xS. For some
high pH dissolvers — SD-E, SD-H and SD-I — no noticeable
change in corrosivity was observed. SD-C SD-D SD-E

This lower corrosivity seems to be unrelated to pH; the

dissolver pH showed little change after the Fe1-xS dissolution
tests. This is shown in Fig. 9, where the pH of the spent dis-
solvers taken from the autoclave test of 1,000 psi is plotted Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

against the pH of the live dissolvers. SD-F SD-G SD-H

Figure 10 summarizes the relationship between the pH

of scale dissolvers and their corrosivity. The test candidates
SD-A and SD-B had very high corrosivity, > 0.2 lb/ft2. The
THPS-based scale dissolvers, SD-C, SD-D, SD-F and SD-G,
showed medium corrosivity with the corrosion rate between SD-I SD-J SD-K
Fig. 8. Corrosion rate at 125 °C after 4 hours in live and spent dissolver solutions.
0.02 lb/ft2 and 0.2 lb/ft2. The low pH chelate (SD-E), pH Fig.11.
Fig. 11. Images
Images of theoftest
thecoupons
test coupons after
after 4 hours 4 hours at
of immersion of125immersion at 125
°C in live scale °C in live
dissolvers.
neutralized chelate (SD-H and SD-I) and alkaline dissolvers scale dissolvers.

(SD-J and SD-K) showed less corrosivity, with a rate of <

0.02 lb/ft2.
Figure 11 shows light microscope images of the coupons
after their immersion in the live scale dissolvers. 125 °C
150 °C
SD-A, SD-
C, SD-D and SD-G caused severe pitting
SD-F SD-G corrosion. They SD-H

therefore are not suitable for field application. SD-B, SD-F

and SD-H produced a few tiny pits, and a few discoloration
spots were observed on coupons exposed to dissolver SD-
I. Further tests will be arranged to confirm these results.
Test coupons immersed in dissolvers SD-E, SD-J and SD-K
Fig. 12. Corrosion weight loss at 125 °C and 150 °C after 4-hour immersion in live dissolvers.
showed no localized corrosion; their topography is similar to
SD-I SD-J SD-K
that of the blank coupon.
Fig. 11. Images of the test coupons after 4 hours of immersion at 125 °

Fig. 9.
Fig. 9. pH
pH of
of live
livedissolvers
dissolversand spent
and dissolvers.
spent dissolvers. Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

125 °C
150 °C

Fig. 12.
Fig. 12. Corrosion
Corrosion weight
weight loss
loss at
at 125
125 °C
°C and
and150
150°C
°Cafter
after4-hour
4-hourimmersion
immersionin
Fig. 10. pH of live dissolvers vs. corrosion rate at 125 °C over 4 hours. live dissolvers.
Fig. 10. pH of live dissolvers vs. corrosion rate at 125 °C over 4 hours.

SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY WINTER 2016 51

 Dissolution Corrosion Weight Pitting CONCLUSIONS
Capacity (g) Loss (lb/ft2) Corrosion
1. Iron sulfides are the major scale type deposited in the
SD-A 1.89 0.452 yes
Khuff sour gas well strings, with Fe1-xS being the most
SD-B 1.33 0.295 mild
common iron sulfide mineral. Non-acid based scale dis-
SD-D 0.43 0.153 yes solvers have been considered as one cost-effective alterna-
SD-C 0.43 0.113 yes tive for removing downhole tubular deposits.
SD-J 0.37 0.009 no 2. More than 20 iron sulfide dissolvers have been evaluated;
SD-H 0.26 0.015 mild
test results for 10 dissolvers are reported in this article.
Balancing the dissolution capacity with the corrosion rate
SD-I 0.22 0.005 no
and pitting evidence, the newly developed iron sulfide
SD-E 0.20 0.016 no
dissolver SD-J showed the best performance, with a good
SD-F 0.19 0.041 mild iron sulfide dissolution capacity, less corrosive at high
SD-G 0.13 0.031 yes temperature and no localized corrosion. This dissolver
SD-K 0.12 0.001 no also will experience no free H2S gas generation and no
iron sulfide re-precipitation due to its high pH level — pH
Table 2. Summary of scale dissolution and corrosion results over a 4-hour test
> 12.
Effect of Temperature on Corrosivity 3. The test pressure did not have a major effect on the dis-
solving performance, with the performance ranking of the
To determine the effect of temperature on corrosivity against tested scale dissolvers unchanged at test pressures from
carbon steel, additional corrosion tests were performed at ambient to 4,000 psi. Therefore, tests carried out without
150 °C. The results are shown in Fig. 12. The temperature applied pressure can be used to screen and rank the dis-
had a significant effect on the corrosivity results. Except for solution performance of iron sulfide scale dissolvers going
SD-J, higher corrosion rates were observed at 150 °C for forward.
all candidate dissolvers. Significant increases in corrosivity, 4. Their corrosion of mild carbon steel generally decreases
more than double for most of the candidate dissolvers, were as dissolvers become more alkaline. The dissolution ca-
observed with temperature increases from 125 °C and 150 pacity non-acid based dissolvers — pH > 2 — is deter-
°C. mined by other factors, such as dissolver chemistry and
essay concentration, rather than pH level.
Summary
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Table 2 summarizes the results of the dissolver evaluation
The authors would like to thank the management of Saudi
for effectiveness against iron sulfide scale. The evaluation
Aramco for their support and permission to publish this ar-
used a chemical toolbox approach, where the major perfor-
ticle. The authors would also like to thank Ali Jabran, Faez
mance factors were dissolution capacity and corrosivity, to
Dawood, Tawfiq Shafai and Esmael Albelharith for their
identify new dissolvers for Khuff field application. Because
help on conducting the lab tests.
SD-B, SD-C and SD-D showed high corrosivity, > 0.05 lb/ft2,
over the test period, they are not suitable for this field appli- REFERENCES
cation. Reformulation will be considered for these dissolvers
to reduce their corrosivity. SD-G and SD-K, which showed 1. Durham, L.S.: “The Elephant of All Elephants,” AAPG
poor dissolution capacity, are not effective enough as iron Explorer, January 2005.
sulfide scale dissolvers for the field. Balancing dissolution ca- 2. Rasoul, S.: “Finding Ghawar: Elephant Hid in Desert,”
pacity with corrosivity, the newly developed iron sulfide dis- AAPG Explorer, June 2011.
solver SD-J exhibited the best performance, with good iron
3. Al-Tammar, J.I., Bonis, M., Choi, H.J. and Al-Salim, Y.:
sulfide dissolution capacity and low corrosivity against mild
“Saudi Aramco Downhole Corrosion/Scaling Operational
carbon steel at high temperatures. In addition, the high pH
Experience and Challenges in HP/HT Gas Condensate
of this product significantly reduces the risk of free H2S gas
Producers,” SPE paper 169618, presented at the SPE
generation and iron sulfide re-precipitation. Further devel-
International Oil Field Corrosion Conference and
opment of other iron sulfide scale dissolvers should focus on
Exhibition, Aberdeen, Scotland, May 12-13, 2014.
these high pH products and seek to improve their dissolving
4. Franco, C.A., Al-Marri, H.M., Al-Asiri, M.A. and Al-
capacity while maintaining their low corrosivity.
Hussain, H.M.: “Understanding the Nature of the Mineral
Scale Problems in Ghawar Gas Condensate Wells to
Describe and Apply the Right Approach of Mitigation,”

52 WINTER 2016 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

 paper 08347, presented at CORROSION 2008, New
Orleans, Louisiana, March 16-20, 2008.
5. Wang, Q., Ajwad, H., Shafai, T. and Lynn, J.D.: “Iron
Sulfide Scale Dissolvers: How Effective Are They?” SPE
paper 168063, presented at the SPE Saudi Arabia Section
Technical Symposium and Exhibition, al-Khobar, Saudi
Arabia, May 19-22, 2013.
6. Al-Tolaihy, M., Bukhari, D.O., Wu, A.M. and Carlos,
F.G.: “Study on the Optimization of De-Scaling Operations
in Saudi Arabian Khuff Gas Wells,” paper 10271, pre-
sented at CORROSION 2010, San Antonio, Texas, March
14-18, 2010.
7. Leal Jauregui, J.A., Solares, J.R., Nasr-El-Din, H.A.,
Franco, C.A., Garzon, F.O., Al-Marri, H.M., et al.: “A
Systematic Approach to Remove Iron Sulfide Scale: A Case
History,” SPE paper 105607, presented at the SPE Middle
East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain,
March 11-14, 2007.
8. Leal Jauregui, J.A., Nunez Garcia, W., Al-Ismail, S.A.,
Solares, J.R. and Ramanathan, V.: “Novel Mechanical
Scale Clean Out Approach to Remove Iron Sulfide Scale
from Tubulars in Vertical High-Pressure and Temperature
Deep Gas Producers: A Case History,” SPE paper 121404,
presented at the EUROPEC/EAGE Conference and
Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 8-11, 2009.
9. Walker, M.L., Dill, W.R. and Besler, M.R.: “Iron Control
Provides Sustained Production Increase in Wells Containing
Sour Gas,” Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology,
Vol. 29, Issue 6, November 1990, pp. 46-50.

SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY WINTER 2016 53

 BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Tao Chen is a Petroleum
Engineering Specialist working with
the Production Technology Team of
Saudi Aramco’s Exploration and
Petroleum Engineering Center –
Advanced Research Center (EXPEC
ARC). His interests are production
chemistry and flow assurance in the oil and gas industry,
specializing in oil field scale management.
Prior to joining Saudi Aramco in 2014, Tao spent more
than 10 years on oil field scale management in the Eastern
Hemisphere, working at Clariant, Champion Technologies,
Nalco Champion and LR Senergy in Aberdeen, U.K.
He has published nearly 60 technical publications about
scale management in oil fields.
Tao received both his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Chemical
Engineering from Dalian University of Technology, China,
and his Ph.D. degree in Chemical Engineering from
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, U.K. Tao also received
an MBA from Warwick University, Coventry, U.K.
Dr. Qiwei Wang works in Saudi
Aramco’s Research and Development
Center as a Science Specialist in oil
field scale mitigation. Since joining
Saudi Aramco in 2011, he has played
a key role in all major scale mitigation
activities and led the completion of
over 40 projects. Before joining Saudi Aramco, Qiwei
worked for Nalco Champion as an R&D Coordinator on
flow management and as a Senior Specialist on scale
management. He has over 25 years of R&D and technical
support experience on oil field production chemistry, scale
management and water treatment.
Qiwei is an active member of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers (SPE) and National Association of Corrosion
Engineers (NACE). He has organized workshops, served on
technical committees and chaired several conferences for
both organizations.
He has authored and coauthored over 80 publications
and nine U.S. patent applications.
Qiwei received his B.Eng. degree in Chemical
Engineering from Taiyuan University of Science and
Technology, Taiyuan, China; an M.Eng. degree in Material
Sciences from Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin,
China; an M.S. degree in Chemistry from the University
of Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan; and his Ph.D. degree in
Oceanography from Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX.
54 WINTER 2016 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Fakuen “Frank” F. Chang is the
focus area champion for Productivity
Enhancement in the Production
Technology Team of Saudi Aramco’s
Exploration and Petroleum
Engineering Center – Advanced
Research Center (EXPEC ARC).
Prior to joining Saudi Aramco in September 2012, he
worked at Schlumberger for 16 years. Before that, Frank
was at Stimlab for 4 years. He has developed many
products and technologies dealing with sand control,
fracturing, acidizing and perforating.
Frank is an inventor and recipient of 23 granted U.S.
patents, and he is the author of more than 40 Society of
Petroleum Engineers (SPE) technical papers.
Frank received his B.S. degree in Mineral and Petroleum
Engineering from the National Cheng Kung University,
Tainan City, Taiwan; his M.S. degree in Petroleum
Engineering from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette,
Lafayette, LA; and his Ph.D. degree in Petroleum Engineering
from the University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
Dr. Yahya T. Al-Janabi is a Research
Science Consultant at Saudi Aramco’s
Research and Development Center.
He has worked in the field of
corrosion for more than 25 years.
During this time, Yahya has led to
completion over 25 applied research
studies and many technical projects; he established several
new competencies, and introduced five new technologies.
Yahya’s current focus is on downhole corrosion where he
developed/co-developed best practices, guidelines, and
standards.
Yahya is one of the Saudi Aramco key team members
that founded the King Abdullah University of Science and
Technology (KAUST).
He has one granted U.S. patent, two U.S. patent
applications, and more than 75 publications in the field of
corrosion.
Yahya is a member of several technical societies,
including the American Chemical Society (ACS), National
Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) and Society of
Petroleum Engineers (SPE). He has also been very active on
the technical committees of several regional conferences, as
a Technical Committee Chairman and as a Session Chair.
In addition, Yahya is a part-time faculty member, teaching
graduate level courses in the field of corrosion.
He received his B.S. degree in Chemistry (Industrial)
in 1988, his M.S. degree in Physical Chemistry in 1993,
and his Ph.D. degree in Physical Chemistry in 1997, all
from King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
(KFUPM), Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.