throbber
4088
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC, . 4:09-CV-01827
` . HOUSTON, TEXAS
`PLAINTIFF, .
` .
` vs. .
` .
`ION GEOPHYSICAL .
`CORPORATION, FUGRO GEOTEAM, .
`INC., ET AL, .
` . VOLUME 13
`DEFENDANTS . AUGUST 9, 2012
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7:34 A.M.
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE KEITH P. ELLISON
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
` A
`
`
`
`
`
` P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`Lee K. Kaplan
`SMYSER KAPLAN & VESELKA LLP
`Bank of America Center
`700 Louisiana, Suite 2300
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Gregg F. LoCascio
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`655 Fifteenth Street Northwest
`Washington, DC 20005
`Sarah Tsou
`Timothy K. Gilman
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`Citigroup Center
`153 East 53rd Street
`New York, New York 10022
`
`
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
`07:20
`
`07:33
`
`07:33
`
`07:33
`
`07:33
`
`07:33
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 1
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`13:33
`
`07:33
`
`07:35
`
`07:35
`
`07:35
`
`07:35
`
` 4092
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(Jury present)
`THE COURT: You may resume.
`KENNETH WILLIAMSON, DULY SWORN, FURTHER TESTIFIED:
`DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
`BY MR. TORGERSON:
`Q
`Yesterday, you were discussing a number of different issues
`identifying market resistance to Q-Marine. Q-Marine had been
`publicly offered prior to your joinder to the then-merged
`WesternGeco entity. And you gave us some examples of market
`resistance to Q-Marine that you personally witnessed in
`connection with your role as sales manager and as vice
`president of marketing through 2003.
`One of these -- would you agree with me that one
`of the issues of market resistance to Q-Marine was its high
`price?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`And remind us again how different the original pricing of
`Q-Marine was over the rest of conventional seismic.
`A
`The intended -- by the time it came to be rationalized, it
`was about three or four times the price of conventional, was
`the initial projected target.
`Q
`And that went down over time?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`And we will talk about some other examples of that.
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 2
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:36
`
`07:36
`
`07:36
`
`07:36
`
`07:37
`
`07:37
`
` 4093
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`Another area of market resistance to Q-Marine was
`WesternGeco's refusal to release the single sensor data. Is
`that fair?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`Another area that you had mentioned yesterday, I believe,
`was some early teething problems, as you described them, or
`technical issues associated with the performance of Q-Marine,
`just like any other new technology?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`You gave us a story about an episode in Mauritania. Were
`there other technical issues that you had heard about up
`through the end of 2003 associated with the performance of the
`Q-Fin?
`A
`It was the propeller effect.
`Q
`What is that?
`A
`It was an issue where the fin would have parallel wing
`angles and it would act like an impeller, and after it went in
`the water, it would just keep rotating. And that caused some
`problems with lots of noise. And eventually we would have to
`stop and go and retrieve that malfunctioning device from the
`streamers.
`Q
`And in addition to that, we talked briefly yesterday about
`solid streamers or the fact that WesternGeco didn't offer solid
`streamers with its Q-Marine system while you were there.
`What was the importance of that, again?
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 3
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:37
`
`07:37
`
`07:38
`
`07:38
`
`07:38
`
`07:39
`
` 4094
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`There were several. One was that for places where we were
`A
`arguing about single sensor for the noise reduction, some of
`the competitors with solid streamer were effectively combating
`similar arguments with the performance of the solid streamer,
`because that was also quite robust for eliminating weather-
`related noise. So we just lost that argument against solid
`streamer. So it was like a competitive type of situation.
`Q
`So in the market, you had different manufacturers and
`different contractors utilizing solid streamers, essentially
`pitching to the oil companies that their technology was better
`for noise reduction, and on the other hand, WesternGeco was
`touting its ability to attenuate noise through the Q-Marine
`single sensor network?
`A
`That's correct, yeah.
`Q
`All right. As a result of these issues that led to market
`resistance to Q-Marine, how did that impact the utilization of
`the Q-Marine fleet?
`A
`Utilization was low. In fact, we had -- one of the issues
`was the stance on price, and market acceptance caused a
`utilization issue with the Q-Marine fleet. So it was low.
`Q
`Yesterday, you had told us about a pricing tier that you
`had put in place, not unlike a car wash. And could you give
`some brief background on how that came about?
`Was there any interaction with senior management
`or leadership within WesternGeco and Schlumberger to get that
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 4
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:39
`
`07:39
`
`07:39
`
`07:40
`
`07:40
`
`07:40
`
` 4095
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`pricing tier established?
`A
`Yes. Initially, under the presidency of Gary Jones, we
`were trying to roll Q out and have this pricing discussion in
`the marketplace. We clearly weren't getting the traction, but
`there was sort of a predetermined mandate about pricing that
`"We are not going to back down on pricing. We will shut the
`vessels down." And I could see that it was clear it wasn't
`going to work. We were going to struggle with very low
`utilization for a long time.
`And when Dalton Boutte came in as president, we
`had more fingers into the mother ship of the Schlumberger
`company to get the audience compliant to maybe change their
`stance a little bit. And ultimately there was a meeting he
`organized with Andrew Gould present, who was the chairman at
`the time. And I think it was a three-hour slot that I had in
`that meeting agenda, with lots of technical support showing
`some of the market resistance to utilization and showing that
`with a lower price, we could probably get a much higher
`utilization.
`
`I remember showing a chart in that meeting which
`showed that we were around 10 percent utilization based on the
`current pricing and looking at we could probably achieve a
`lower pricing and much higher utilization, but overall a higher
`profitability than we were getting.
`And part of the market feedback -- and I think
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 5
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:40
`
`07:40
`
`07:41
`
`07:41
`
`07:41
`
`07:42
`
` 4096
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`the emails and market pulse that we polled the market on I
`discussed yesterday -- that was part of the evidence we used to
`support this is what the market is expecting for pricing, so we
`need to change our strategy.
`Q
`You were successful in making that approach to management,
`and you were permitted to go forward with this tiered pricing?
`A
`Yes. That was the outcome of that meeting, yes.
`Q
`As I recall from yesterday, the tiered pricing related to
`the granularity or the fidelity of the data based on these
`spacings.
`A
`Right.
`Q
`Now, there were times, I believe you said yesterday, where
`a premium or some part of a premium was obtained. When you
`moved over to the Russia and Caspian region as manager, did you
`see an example of that?
`A
`We did. It was a project that I was in the process of
`developing with a company called Anadarko. It was in the Black
`Sea, in the Georgian sector. This was a place I had on my
`objectives to get a Q-Marine project in my region, which was
`Russia and Caspian region. So this was in the Georgian sector
`of the Black Sea.
`And we managed to roll out a price which was
`consistent with the tiered pricing. I think it was around
`Tier 1. I think it was Tier 1 pricing. And we successfully
`won that project with the Tier 1 pricing.
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 6
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:42
`
`07:42
`
`07:42
`
`07:43
`
`07:43
`
`07:43
`
` 4097
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`What time frame are we talking about?
`Q
`This would have been about 2004.
`A
`And do you have an understanding as to how you reached that
`Q
`premium, how you arrived at that?
`A
`Well, we took the Tier 1 pricing of the day and rolled it
`out and offered that to the customer.
`Q
`What kind of situation was the customer in from your
`perspective?
`A
`Well, this was an interesting outcome in the fact that -- I
`relayed this back to Dalton, who was my boss at the time. And
`what we had was the market was clearly -- because our pricing
`was a lot higher, generally the sales cycle, the time it took
`to propose a proposal and actually close the deal, it was
`often, "Well, it's a lot higher price than normal. It will
`take me a while to get the internal approvals to go ahead with
`this."
`
`I think what we saw there with Anadarko, they
`were struggling to find a vessel. All the vessels -- the
`market had started to pick up. And so the conventional prices
`were starting to rise and rise and rise. And, of course, our
`Q-Marine pricing was certainly above conventional pricing when
`it was offered. By the time we actually closed and negotiated
`the deal, it was probably consistent or maybe slightly above
`conventional pricing, but the oil companies found themselves in
`a place where they just couldn't get a vessel. So they were
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 7
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:43
`
`07:43
`
`07:44
`
`07:44
`
`07:44
`
`07:44
`
` 4098
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`buying off the market the most available vessel.
`Q
`And is that market recovery part of these peaks and valleys
`that your industry often goes through?
`A
`Absolutely, yes.
`Q
`So in 2000, 2001, is it fair to say that the marine seismic
`industry was in a bit of a trough, in a valley?
`A
`Yes. Correct.
`Q
`And it had started to recover by 2004?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`You left WesternGeco and Schlumberger in 2006; is that
`right?
`A
`2006, yes.
`Q
`How was the market then?
`A
`You couldn't find a vessel if you wanted one. The industry
`was building new vessels. They couldn't build them fast
`enough, and it was a very tight market.
`Q
`And how long would you say -- you continued in the market
`after joining ION, and you -- is it fair to say that you
`continued to monitor those issues as part of your job?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`All right. And in, say, 2008, 2009, how was the market?
`A
`2008 was a very good year for the whole industry. And 2009
`was a big problem. We saw a global recession. It fell through
`to the seismic industry, as well.
`Q
`And how are things doing today?
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 8
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:45
`
`07:45
`
`07:45
`
`07:45
`
`07:46
`
`07:46
`
` 4099
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`They're starting to improve again.
`A
`This list, for the record, I made of market resistance to
`Q
`Q-Marine, I have marked as Williamson Demonstrative 1.
`With regard to Williamson Demonstrative 2, I want
`to do sort of a quick timeline, and see if you agree with me.
`We have the price here, and we have the years here on the
`bottom.
`
`Would you agree that the cycle of the industry
`was something along the lines of that?
`A
`Yes. I would move the peak a little bit toward the right.
`Q
`Right here?
`A
`Yeah.
`Q
`Fair enough. Something like that?
`A
`Yeah.
`Q
`All right. So by the time the market was recovering in
`about 2001, where you indicated -- excuse me -- by 2004 where
`you indicated this Black Sea example to us, was it your view
`that the premium price had dropped such that they were sort of
`meeting in the middle?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`All right. Let's shift gears a little bit and talk about,
`specifically, lateral steering requirements in the industry,
`Mr. Williamson.
`Do you recall any surveys -- let me back up. As
`part of your job, it was regular course for you to respond
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 9
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:46
`
`07:46
`
`07:47
`
`07:47
`
`07:47
`
`07:48
`
` 4100
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`directly to tenders for different oil companies on behalf of
`WesternGeco and even previously for Western Geophysical. Is
`that fair?
`A
`Yes. Correct.
`Q
`And would it also be fair to say that you supervised the
`work of others doing the same thing?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`So you were intimately involved in the tendering process?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`Do you recall any vessels in the towed marine space that
`required lateral steering before -- well, what year did you
`first start seeing lateral steering requirements?
`A
`We started to see that in -- it wasn't ever expressed as a
`requirement, an absolute requirement. It was a preference.
`And I would say that started in probably 2002 and '3.
`Q
`What companies, in your recollection, were those that were
`expressing it as a preference?
`A
`A good example was Statoil. They had a 4D mantra inside
`the company, and they were -- they believed that the streamer
`steering for them was an important part of 4D techniques.
`Q
`Would you agree that they were sort of at the frontier or
`the pioneers supporting this technology?
`A
`Norway as a country is ahead of the game, and Statoil,
`being a Norwegian company, was very much a part of that, yes.
`Q
`Back to the issue, though, specifically as a requirement.
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 10
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:48
`
`07:48
`
`07:48
`
`07:48
`
`07:48
`
`07:49
`
` 4101
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`When was the first time that you heard about oil companies
`requiring, as a technical matter, lateral steering entering
`into the tender process?
`A
`I have never seen a requirement that you would be
`disqualified should you not be able to provide it.
`Q
`Do you recall seeing any such requirements before leaving
`WesternGeco in 2006?
`A
`No.
`Q
`WesternGeco, as you know, was the only company to offer
`lateral steering until the introduction of DigiFIN; is that
`right?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`And in connection -- and you understood that WesternGeco
`wasn't selling that to other companies?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`Was there any discussion while you were there at
`WesternGeco about potentially selling or licensing that
`technology to other companies?
`A
`No.
`Q
`Is that a strong policy?
`A
`It's vertical integration, that's a Schlumberger thing,
`keep it inside the family.
`Q
`And as part of your marketing efforts and maybe even the
`efforts that preceded and followed you, were there attempts by
`WesternGeco to influence the purchasing decisions of oil
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 11
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:49
`
`07:49
`
`07:49
`
`07:50
`
`07:50
`
`07:50
`
` 4102
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`companies about lateral steering?
`A
`Absolutely, yes.
`Q
`Tell us about that.
`A
`So there were -- in the 4D application, we actually have a
`lot of technical marketing to try and demonstrate the value of
`repeating source and receiver locations as part of the
`repeatability aspects of 4D acquisition time lapse. And some
`of the companies -- there were several industry attempts to
`provide 4D solutions.
`The WesternGeco one was a demonstration that
`the -- the ability to go and place the receivers and the
`streamers in the same places they were on on the previous
`survey was important. And Statoil was an example of a company
`that did that.
`So not wanting to rule out other competition and
`saying, you know, here is a definite requirement for streamer
`steering, they would place some preferences in there or some
`specifications which would probably only be able to be
`delivered if you had lateral steering.
`Q
`What would be an example of such a specification -- a
`technical specification that you would think could only be met
`with lateral steering?
`A
`An example would be, you know, you shall tow the streamers
`and the separation will be within a certain tolerance. So that
`implied some level of control or either good fortune that they
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 12
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:50
`
`07:50
`
`07:51
`
`07:51
`
`07:52
`
`07:52
`
` 4103
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`would stay that way, yeah, without -- without control.
`Q
`Let me ask you this, Mr. Williamson. When you talked about
`repeatability, does that mean repeating the positions of the
`receivers and the array, or does it mean something in addition
`to that to you?
`A
`Yeah, repeatability is one of those things in the industry
`which is misused. In a time lapse survey, the idea is to
`measure and monitor the differences in the response of the
`earth that is caused by production size. You take oil out of
`the ground. Where the oil is being removed, there is a change
`in the response of that reservoir, the idea being that where
`there is no change in geology or signal, when you do another
`survey, you want to see exactly the same thing.
`So having good repeatability is a place where you
`know there has been no change in the reservoir is to say you
`are recording the same signal. So that's what we call it,
`geophysical repeatability. So that is an important part of any
`4D or time-lapse method.
`Q
`Well, aside from lateral steering being able to help you
`with this repeatability function in a 4D application, what
`other solutions were out there in the market that you were
`aware of?
`A
`At the time, PGS were marketing what they call HD 3D
`technique, which is a high density 3D technique where they
`would have lots and lots of streamers all placed very close
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 13
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:52
`
`07:52
`
`07:52
`
`07:53
`
`07:53
`
`07:53
`
` 4104
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`together. So they would over-sample, overmeasure, if you like,
`the area. So they were relying on lots of measurements to
`overcome the same thing.
`Q
`Did PGS back in this time frame have lateral steering
`capability?
`A
`No, they did not.
`Q
`How were they keeping their streamers from tangling?
`A
`They just relied on a much higher density sampling of
`streamers, and they would tow behind the vessel in a normal
`manner.
`Q
`What was the spacing you knew about with regard to PGS?
`A
`They were a much narrower spacing. There were typically
`50 meters between streamers.
`Q
`To your knowledge, were their arrays any shorter than
`WesternGeco's, the length of the streamers?
`A
`No.
`Q
`Now, this oversampling or overmeasuring, as you described
`it, are you familiar with some new techniques using the same
`type of approach that are now offered by WesternGeco?
`A
`The new technology, which has just been released, it is
`generating virtual streamers. So it is simulating streamers
`which are not there. So it is like a modeling of streamers
`that are in between the ones that are being towed.
`Q
`What is this product called?
`A
`IsoMetrix.
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 14
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:53
`
`07:53
`
`07:54
`
`07:54
`
`07:54
`
`07:54
`
` 4105
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`Was it, to your knowledge, rolled out at the June 2012
`Q
`EAGE?
`A
`Yes, it was.
`Q
`Did you attend WesternGeco presentations on that subject?
`A
`I saw the booth presentations, yes.
`Q
`All right. And as a result or from those presentations,
`what was your understanding of what this approach would look
`like?
`A
`It certainly -- it was proposing fewer streamers but with
`much more clever measurements in each streamer and with those
`measurements being then able to interpolate mathematically the
`presence of streamers or other measurements that were lying
`between the streamers that were being towed.
`Q
`Did WesternGeco convey to the public, and therefore to you,
`Mr. Williamson, that the intent was to tow fewer streamers
`farther apart?
`A
`That was one of the benefits that was implicated.
`Q
`Was there any impact on the importance of steerable
`streamers conveyed?
`A
`It seemed less. The implication was there was certainly
`less importance for that.
`Q
`What also would be a benefit from a cost standpoint
`associated with this new approach?
`A
`Obviously there is much -- we think there would be a lower
`capex. If you looked at the vessel's design compared to the
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 15
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:55
`
`07:55
`
`07:55
`
`07:55
`
`07:56
`
`07:56
`
` 4106
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`competitors', they were certainly designed narrower, for less
`streamers, much less equipment in the water. So it seemed like
`a lower risk, lower capex-type investment.
`Q
`Was there an understanding of the data that was going to be
`obtained? Was there a shift in policy that you detected?
`A
`I didn't get that directly, but from talking with oil
`companies who had seen and had conversations, it sounded like
`they were going to make available all the interpolated data
`available on a shot-by-shot basis. So it seemed to be a more
`open access policy for the underlying data.
`Q
`And that would be in contrast to your experience with
`WesternGeco's hard line stance to refuse to release that data
`using Q-Marine?
`A
`It would appear to be, yes.
`Q
`Let's go back to our timeline, if we can. The recession, I
`believe, started, what, in the late fall of 2008?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`And oil prices dropped like a rock?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`And what was the reaction of the various contractors out
`there, WesternGeco, PGS, CGGV? What did they do?
`A
`One of the things I monitor on a regular basis is the
`average price for 2D vessels and 3D vessels, both low-, mid-,
`and high-capacity 3D vessels. We saw through the various
`reports that we get that the prices came down quite
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 16
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:56
`
`07:56
`
`07:56
`
`07:57
`
`07:57
`
`07:58
`
` 4107
`
` Torgerson Direct Continued of Kenneth Williamson
`
`significantly.
`Q
`Everybody's prices came down?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`What about the capacity of the fleet? What did they do
`with their boats?
`A
`Some of them were being tied up.
`Q
`Now, regardless of that, in connection, if we go from, say,
`2008, 2009, 2010, did you have an understanding about
`WesternGeco's capacity, or their utilization?
`A
`No. I mean, just the market in general.
`Q
`Okay. During this time frame, around 2008 or so, had
`WesternGeco -- before the recession, had WesternGeco acquired a
`company that would bring in a number of boats?
`A
`Yes, they had.
`Q
`Tell us about that briefly.
`A
`It was a company called Eastern Echo. They had built or
`they had orders for, I think, four vessels, with options for
`two more. And as part of the ramp-up and access capacity, the
`industry in general was trying to get more boats on the market.
`Schlumberger had been an aggressive buyer of
`Eastern Echo by buying up the debt. And that became a way to
`get four vessels that were already in the pipeline. So it was
`a way to accelerate new vessels on to the market.
`Q
`Mr. Williamson, as a result of your personal experiences
`within WesternGeco and your time spent monitoring the market
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 17
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:58
`
`07:58
`
`07:58
`
`07:58
`
`07:58
`
`07:58
`
` 4108
`
` Tsou Cross of Kenneth Williamson
`
`since then, including weathering the storm of this recession,
`do you believe that WesternGeco's problems with Q-Marine have
`anything to do with the introduction of DigiFIN?
`A
`No, I don't.
`MR. TORGERSON: Pass the witness.
`THE COURT: Any questions?
`MR. ARNOLD: Not from us, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Ms. Tsou?
`MS. TSOU: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: You may require.
`CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`BY MS. TSOU:
`Q
`We heard a lot about your real-world experiences with
`WesternGeco yesterday and today; is that correct?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`You work for ION now; isn't that true?
`A
`That's correct.
`Q
`You work in the multiclient business?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`You don't work in the seismic acquisition business?
`A
`No.
`Q
`You have been at ION for six years; is that correct?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`You left WesternGeco almost seven years ago, right?
`A
`Yes.
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 18
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`07:58
`
`07:59
`
`07:59
`
`07:59
`
`07:59
`
`08:00
`
` 4109
`
` Tsou Cross of Kenneth Williamson
`
`And that's before DigiFIN even launched?
`Q
`Yes.
`A
`You have no ability to discuss any details of WesternGeco's
`Q
`marine seismic work after 2005, true?
`A
`Other than the publicly available information that a lot of
`industry understands.
`Q
`Since 2005, you have no personal knowledge about
`WesternGeco's marine seismic work, right?
`A
`I have no proprietary knowledge of their seismic work.
`Q
`We just heard a little bit about IsoMetrix. That is one
`example of something you have no personal knowledge to talk
`about, correct?
`A
`No proprietary knowledge to talk about.
`Q
`You are saying "proprietary." Is that personal?
`A
`There is available information on the market which is
`available to the industry, like the launch information at
`Copenhagen.
`Q
`Other than the publicly available knowledge, you have
`nothing to say about IsoMetrix.
`A
`No.
`Q
`You don't know how important lateral steering is to
`IsoMetrix on a personal level?
`A
`No.
`Q
`I'd like to talk about lateral steering. Before lateral
`steering came along, you would agree that people in the
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 19
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`08:00
`
`08:00
`
`08:00
`
`08:00
`
`08:00
`
`08:01
`
` 4110
`
` Tsou Cross of Kenneth Williamson
`
`industry wanted it for a long time, wouldn't you?
`A
`There has been a general need for it, yes.
`Q
`In fact, from your first trip on a seismic vessel around
`1987, there were common discussions about the potential
`benefits of lateral steering, right?
`A
`Absolutely, yes.
`Q
`And you believed there was a need for lateral steering well
`before 1999?
`A
`There has always been an operational efficiency need for
`lateral steering.
`Q
`Your first knowledge of any practicability to actually
`implement a method of performing lateral steering was Geco's
`work on Q-Technology?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`You were at Western Geophysical between 1997 and 2008,
`right?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`And nobody was doing lateral steering during that time
`period at Western, correct?
`A
`That's correct, yes.
`Q
`Your first awareness of the development of lateral steering
`was when Western and Geco merged in 2000?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`Now, you discussed the importance of single sensors to
`WesternGeco. And again, this is based on your experiences
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 20
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`08:01
`
`08:01
`
`08:01
`
`08:02
`
`08:02
`
`08:02
`
` 4111
`
` Tsou Cross of Kenneth Williamson
`
`prior to 2005, right?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`First of all, it's not really true for all surveys, is it?
`A
`The importance of single sensor data?
`Q
`Yes.
`A
`Also they have different -- there are features of Q-Marine
`which are valuable for different customers and different
`applications.
`Q
`You would agree with me that single sensor wasn't the most
`important driver of prices of 4D surveys?
`A
`It depends on the customer and the application.
`Q
`Would you agree that lateral steering is the most important
`driver of prices for 4D surveys?
`A
`I would agree for companies that believe that repeating
`source and receiver coordinates is an important factor for
`them.
`
`There are two schools of thought out there. One
`is you blanket-survey with measurements, and others, that you
`try and reposition the streamers in the same place. So
`different companies had different philosophies as to which one
`was the best method.
`Q
`Sir, would you agree that for 4D surveys, lateral steering
`is the most important driver for prices?
`A
`No.
`Q
`You were deposed in this case, right?
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 21
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`08:02
`
`08:02
`
`08:03
`
`07:58
`
`08:03
`
`08:03
`
` 4112
`
` Tsou Cross of Kenneth Williamson
`
`A
`Q
`A
`
`Yes.
`I was the one who deposed you?
`Right.
`MS. TSOU: Let's pull up page 174, 6 through 11.
`BY MS. TSOU:
`Q
`During your deposition, under oath, were you asked this
`question and did you give this answer to me?
`(Videotape playing)
`"Question: What applications would you include
`in the category where you would agree lateral steering is the
`most important driver for prices?
`"Answer: That's it.
`"Question: 4D surveys?
`"Answer: Yeah. 4D surveys, yes."
`(Video stopped)
`BY MS. TSOU:
`Q
`Sir, did you give that answer?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`Now, isn't it true that lateral steering is also the most
`important driver of prices for 3D surveys where 4D surveys were
`later contemplated?
`A
`Could you ask the question again? Sorry.
`Q
`Wouldn't you agree that lateral steering is also the most
`important driver of prices for 3D surveys where a 4D survey is
`later contemplated?
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2125, pg. 22
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`

`
`08:03
`
`08:04
`
`08:04
`
`08:04
`
`08:04
`
`08:04
`
` 4113
`
` Tsou Cross of Kenneth Williamson
`
`If you are a company that wants to repeat the source and
`A
`receiver location, so -- if you want to repeat the same
`positions as you had in the first survey, in the second survey,
`then, yes, it's an important -- it's an important capability.
`Q
`Your opinion on the importance of single sensor prices,
`that is your personal view, right?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`It's not WesternGeco's official stance on the matter prior
`to 2005, by any means, is it?
`A
`Correct.
`Q
`And others valued steering differently than you did; isn't
`that true?
`A
`Inside WesternGeco?
`Q
`Yes.
`A
`I'm sure -- all the features of Q-Marine were valued in
`different ways. Some people thought that single sensor had a
`lot more applications for some companies than others. Others
`believed that streamer steering was more important. So I
`believe there was a spread of opinion on that.
`Q
`And that's the same for customers. Some customers believe
`that steering was the most important feature of Q-Marine?
`A
`Yes. Yes.
`Q
`Some oil companies, while you were at WesternGeco, would
`have attributed the highest value to Q-Marine's lateral
`steeri

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket