Harold E. McGowen III
`
`1
`
` 1 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` 2
`
` BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED and )
` 3 BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD )
` OPERATIONS, INC. )
` 4 )
` Petitioners, ) IPR2016-01496
` 5 ) Patent
` vs. ) 7,134,505 and
` 6 ) other patents
` PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, )
` 7 INC., )
` )
` 8 Patent Owner. )
`
` 9
`
` 10 -------------------------------------
`
` 11 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
`
` 12 HAROLD E. MCGOWEN III
`
` 13 July 27, 2017
`
` 14 -------------------------------------
`
` 15
`
` 16 ORAL DEPOSITION of HAROLD E. MCGOWEN III, produced
`
` 17 as a witness the instance of the Petitioners, and duly
`
` 18 sworn, was taken in the above styled and numbered cause
`
` 19 on July 27, 2017, from 8:07 a.m. to 2:50 p.m. before
`BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY,
` 20 Jeff L. Foster, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and
`LLC AND BAKER HUGHES
`OILFIELD OPERATIONS LLC
` 21 for the State of Texas, at the offices of Caldwell,
`Exhibit 1133
` 22 Cassady, Curry, 2101 Cedar Springs, Road, Suite 1000,
`BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY,
`LLC AND BAKER HUGHES
` 23 Dallas, Texas 75201, pursuant to the Federal Rules of
`OILFIELD OPERATIONS LLC v.
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY
` 24 Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on the
`SERVICES, INC.
`IPR2016-01496
`
` 25 record.
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 1 of 170
`
`
`
`1
`
` 1 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` 2
`
` BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED and )
` 3 BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD )
` OPERATIONS, INC. )
` 4 )
` Petitioners, ) IPR2016-01496
` 5 ) Patent
` vs. ) 7,134,505 and
` 6 ) other patents
` PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, )
` 7 INC., )
` )
` 8 Patent Owner. )
`
` 9
`
` 10 -------------------------------------
`
` 11 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
`
` 12 HAROLD E. MCGOWEN III
`
` 13 July 27, 2017
`
` 14 -------------------------------------
`
` 15
`
` 16 ORAL DEPOSITION of HAROLD E. MCGOWEN III, produced
`
` 17 as a witness the instance of the Petitioners, and duly
`
` 18 sworn, was taken in the above styled and numbered cause
`
` 19 on July 27, 2017, from 8:07 a.m. to 2:50 p.m. before
`BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY,
` 20 Jeff L. Foster, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and
`LLC AND BAKER HUGHES
`OILFIELD OPERATIONS LLC
` 21 for the State of Texas, at the offices of Caldwell,
`Exhibit 1133
` 22 Cassady, Curry, 2101 Cedar Springs, Road, Suite 1000,
`BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY,
`LLC AND BAKER HUGHES
` 23 Dallas, Texas 75201, pursuant to the Federal Rules of
`OILFIELD OPERATIONS LLC v.
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY
` 24 Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on the
`SERVICES, INC.
`IPR2016-01496
`
` 25 record.
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 1 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`1
`
` 1 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` 2
`
` BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED and )
` 3 BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD )
` OPERATIONS, INC. )
` 4 )
` Petitioners, ) IPR2016-01496
` 5 ) Patent
` vs. ) 7,134,505 and
` 6 ) other patents
` PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, )
` 7 INC., )
` )
` 8 Patent Owner. )
`
` 9
`
` 10 -------------------------------------
`
` 11 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
`
` 12 HAROLD E. MCGOWEN III
`
` 13 July 27, 2017
`
` 14 -------------------------------------
`
` 15
`
` 16 ORAL DEPOSITION of HAROLD E. MCGOWEN III, produced
`
` 17 as a witness the instance of the Petitioners, and duly
`
` 18 sworn, was taken in the above styled and numbered cause
`
` 19 on July 27, 2017, from 8:07 a.m. to 2:50 p.m. before
`
` 20 Jeff L. Foster, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and
`
` 21 for the State of Texas, at the offices of Caldwell,
`
` 22 Cassady, Curry, 2101 Cedar Springs, Road, Suite 1000,
`
` 23 Dallas, Texas 75201, pursuant to the Federal Rules of
`
` 24 Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on the
`
` 25 record.
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 1 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`2
`
` 1 A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` 2 THE PETITIONERS:
`
` 3 Mr. Mark T. Garrett
` Mr. Eagle Robinson
` 4 NORTON, ROSE, FULBRIGHT US, LLP
` 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
` 5 Austin, Texas 78701-4255
` (512) 474-5201
` 6 mark.garrett@nortonrosefulbright.com
` eagle.robinson@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
` 7
`
` FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` 8
`
` Mr. Justin Nemunaitis
` 9 CALDWELL, CASSADY, CURRY
` 2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000
` 10 Dallas, Texas 75201
` (241) 888-4853
` 11 jnemunaitis@caldwellcc.com
`
` 12 ALSO APPEARING
`
` 13 Mr. David Guerra, videographer
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 2 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`3
`
` 1 I N D E X
`
` 2 PAGE
`
` 3 Appearances............................. 2
` HAROLD E. MCGOWEN III
` 4 Examination by Mr. Garrett 4
` Examination by Mr. Nemunaitis 164
`
` 5
`
` Signature Page.......................... 167
` 6 Reporter's Certificate.................. 169
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 3 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`4
`
` 1 P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at
`
` 3 8:07 a.m., July 27th, 2017 for the deposition of
`
` 4 Harold E. McGowen III. Counsel, please state your
`
` 5 appearances and the court reporter will then administer
`
` 6 the oath.
`
` 7 MR. GARRETT: This is Mark Garrett with
`
` 8 Norton Rose Fulbright for petitioners, and with me
`
` 9 today is Eagle Robinson, also from Norton Rose
`
` 10 Fulbright.
`
` 11 MR. NEMUNAITIS: Justin Nemunaitis for
`
` 12 the respondent.
`
` 13 HAROLD E. MCGOWEN III,
`
` 14 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
` 15 EXAMINATION
`
` 16 BY MR. GARRETT:
`
` 17 Q. Good morning, Mr. McGowen.
`
` 18 A. Good morning.
`
` 19 Q. In your second declaration, which is Exhibit
`
` 20 2081, you don't assert that a POSITA at the time of the
`
` 21 invention would have been dissuaded from open-hole
`
` 22 multi-zone fracturing due to a concern with induced
`
` 23 fractures from adjacent zones growing into each other,
`
` 24 correct?
`
` 25 A. Can I -- do you mind if I look at my report?
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 4 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
` 1 Q. Not at all.
`
`5
`
` 2 A. Are you saying that I state that in the report
`
` 3 someplace, that there might be a concern about that?
`
` 4 Q. Can I show you the question?
`
` 5 A. Well, I do think that that's another form of
`
` 6 the loss of isolation between intervals. So I think
`
` 7 it's possible that the POSITA would be concerned about
`
` 8 fracking into the zone next to the zone that they're
`
` 9 targeting.
`
` 10 Q. But that's not in your report, right?
`
` 11 A. Well, it depends on how you define zonal
`
` 12 isolation. I believe that's the idea behind the
`
` 13 separate segments in the bore hole is that it creates
`
` 14 zonal isolation for that segment. Insofar as -- you
`
` 15 know, I'd have to reread the whole report, I guess, to
`
` 16 say if I say anything about that specifically, but
`
` 17 insofar as you're trying to create zonal isolation, I
`
` 18 think I'm clear on the point that that's one of the
`
` 19 objectives of the POSITA in the design is to create a
`
` 20 system where they have zonal isolation.
`
` 21 Q. But you don't specify in your report that at
`
` 22 the time of the invention one of the concerns with
`
` 23 compromising zonal isolation was to induce fractures on
`
` 24 opposing sides of a packer growing into each other,
`
` 25 correct?
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 5 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`6
`
` 1 A. I didn't specify, I don't believe, anywhere in
`
` 2 there that -- that particular category of loss of zonal
`
` 3 isolation. Or I guess you could say loss of zonal
`
` 4 isolation.
`
` 5 Q. Was Thomson an economic failure?
`
` 6 A. Do you have a copy of Thomson I can look at?
`
` 7 Q. I do.
`
` 8 A. I don't believe Thomson provides an economic
`
` 9 analysis of the project, so I don't have enough
`
` 10 information to know if it was an economic failure or
`
` 11 not.
`
` 12 Q. Was it only marginally successful?
`
` 13 A. From an economic point of view or just from a
`
` 14 purely experimental point of view?
`
` 15 Q. How would you understand the term marginally
`
` 16 successful?
`
` 17 A. Well, if the objective was to -- which I
`
` 18 assume it is -- for oil and gas companies to make a
`
` 19 profit and get a return on investment, then from my
`
` 20 point of view success would mean it was economically
`
` 21 successful.
`
` 22 Q. So was it only marginally successful?
`
` 23 A. There's no data to prove or disprove economic
`
` 24 success that I can see in this document.
`
` 25 Q. Was Thomson's use of his new system
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 6 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
` 1 irrational?
`
`7
`
` 2 A. So am I trying to opine on the mental state of
`
` 3 the people that ran this job? I'm --
`
` 4 Q. You've testified that a POSITA is motivated to
`
` 5 act in a rational way, right?
`
` 6 A. Yes.
`
` 7 Q. I would assume that that motivation applies to
`
` 8 anybody in this industry; is that right?
`
` 9 A. Yes.
`
` 10 Q. So was Thomson's use of his system irrational?
`
` 11 A. Well, it depends on how you want to use the
`
` 12 word irrational. It's kind of a pejorative term,
`
` 13 sometimes used to indicate that somebody is not in
`
` 14 their right mind, but I'm assuming that's not what you
`
` 15 mean by that.
`
` 16 Q. Well, how do you use the term rational when it
`
` 17 comes to decisions that POSITAs make?
`
` 18 A. It could be based on practical considerations
`
` 19 and in this case ultimately economics.
`
` 20 Q. So in that respect was it irrational to use a
`
` 21 system -- well, excuse me, was Thomson's use of his
`
` 22 system irrational?
`
` 23 A. If your objective was just to do an experiment
`
` 24 and try to determine -- get some new information about
`
` 25 a system, then, no. If you're -- I wouldn't say that
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 7 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`8
`
` 1 it was irrational to try to get information about how
`
` 2 this might work and to do some experimentation with it.
`
` 3 Q. Do you think Thomson's completions were
`
` 4 experimental?
`
` 5 A. Well, I don't have any data here to show
`
` 6 whether it was economic or not or what their
`
` 7 motivations were.
`
` 8 Q. So you don't know if Thomson completed those
`
` 9 wells in order to produce them commercially?
`
` 10 A. That may have been a secondary consideration
`
` 11 if what they were trying to do was to prove up a
`
` 12 concept and test out some new equipment.
`
` 13 Q. Is that what the paper tells you is that the
`
` 14 primary consideration was to prove up a concept and
`
` 15 test out some equipment?
`
` 16 A. Well, if you look at the conclusions, "The
`
` 17 successful installation of four multiple packer MSAF
`
` 18 completions in chalk formation in the North Sea prove
`
` 19 that the system was not only feasible, but highly
`
` 20 efficient, both from an operational standpoint and from
`
` 21 a reservoir treatment standpoint since the stimulations
`
` 22 could be designed and matched to the requirements of
`
` 23 each reservoir zone."
`
` 24 So they successfully installed it is what
`
` 25 he makes the claim here and he talks about what he sees
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 8 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`9
`
` 1 as some benefits, but it never says that the costs
`
` 2 outweigh the -- that the costs are greater than the --
`
` 3 I'm sorry, that the benefits are greater than the costs
`
` 4 or that there was a positive return on investment.
`
` 5 Q. And that's really what drives completion
`
` 6 designs, isn't it, cost?
`
` 7 A. No.
`
` 8 Q. Thomson had not used that system in as many
`
` 9 zones before what he did in that paper, right?
`
` 10 A. In as many zones?
`
` 11 Q. Yes.
`
` 12 A. Thomson had not used that system in as many as
`
` 13 what? Compared to what?
`
` 14 Q. Compared to what he did in the four
`
` 15 completions that are described in that paper.
`
` 16 A. I'm sorry, I don't understand the comparison
`
` 17 that you're making.
`
` 18 Q. So Thomson used something described in the
`
` 19 paper as an MSAF tool. Are you familiar with that?
`
` 20 A. I think that's supposed to be multi-stage acid
`
` 21 fracturing or acid -- I think that's what they're --
`
` 22 the acronym stands for.
`
` 23 Q. Yes, that's my understanding too. And he
`
` 24 describes the fact that it was used previously in only
`
` 25 three zones. Are you familiar with that?
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 9 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`10
`
` 1 A. Is that in this reference? Or is that --
`
` 2 Q. Yes.
`
` 3 A. -- in another reference?
`
` 4 Q. That is in the Thomson reference.
`
` 5 A. I'll have to take your word for it unless I
`
` 6 reread the paper right now. I don't recall all the
`
` 7 details perfectly.
`
` 8 Q. What if I point you to -- if you look down at
`
` 9 the bottom right of each of the pages you'll see added
`
` 10 page numbering.
`
` 11 A. Yes.
`
` 12 Q. So go to page 13 of 26. And then look at the
`
` 13 first full paragraph on that page.
`
` 14 A. On the left-hand column?
`
` 15 Q. Yes. And just read that to yourself and tell
`
` 16 me when you're done.
`
` 17 (Pause.)
`
` 18 A. Yes, I've read it.
`
` 19 Q. (BY MR. GARRETT) So do you agree, then, that
`
` 20 he went from using the MSAF tools in a three-zone
`
` 21 system to using them in a system for a greater number
`
` 22 of zones?
`
` 23 A. Yes.
`
` 24 Q. And was that irrational?
`
` 25 A. Well, again, if what they're trying to do is
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 10 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`11
`
` 1 test the equipment, test the concept, gather some data,
`
` 2 run some economics, then, no, that's not irrational.
`
` 3 Q. Did that contravene the accepted wisdom that
`
` 4 they had gained from using it in only three zones?
`
` 5 A. That really doesn't make any sense to me, that
`
` 6 question.
`
` 7 Q. Do you know what accepted wisdom means?
`
` 8 A. I have a pretty good grasp, I think.
`
` 9 Q. Okay. Do you know what contravene means?
`
` 10 A. Well, maybe you could define it for me.
`
` 11 Q. Well, what do you understand it to mean?
`
` 12 A. I guess it would mean reject or prove the
`
` 13 opposite.
`
` 14 Q. So do you think that the use of the MSAF tool
`
` 15 in three zones had built up an accepted wisdom about
`
` 16 how they function?
`
` 17 A. No.
`
` 18 (Discussion out of the hearing of the
`
` 19 reporter.)
`
` 20 Q. (BY MR. GARRETT) The three papers that you
`
` 21 rely on in Section 10 of your second declaration, which
`
` 22 I may refer to from time to time today as the 2017
`
` 23 declaration, those three papers you cited as teaching
`
` 24 away from multi-zone open-hole fracturing, right?
`
` 25 A. Yes.
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 11 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`12
`
` 1 Q. They have dates of 1988, 1992 and 1996, right?
`
` 2 A. Yes.
`
` 3 Q. Fracturing continued to evolve between those
`
` 4 dates at the time of the invention, right?
`
` 5 A. Yes.
`
` 6 Q. And a POSITA would have had the benefit of
`
` 7 that evolution at the time of the invention, right?
`
` 8 A. A POSITA would have had the benefit of that
`
` 9 additional information on what had gone on in that time
`
` 10 frame.
`
` 11 Q. Is it your understanding that for a technique
`
` 12 to be obvious over the prior art it has to be efficient
`
` 13 and cost effective?
`
` 14 A. That's not really what I was speaking to. I
`
` 15 was speaking to the motivation of the POSITA to combine
`
` 16 elements.
`
` 17 Q. So there's not a need for a technique to be
`
` 18 efficient and cost effective for it to be nonobvious
`
` 19 over the prior art, correct?
`
` 20 A. I think that's correct. But the reason I'm
`
` 21 bringing up some of these issues is that I'm thinking
`
` 22 about what would motivate a POSITA to combine
`
` 23 references or to combine prior art or would demotivate
`
` 24 a POSITA from combining references or prior art.
`
` 25 Q. Prior to the invention date, techniques that
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 12 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`13
`
` 1 had been applied in vertical wells had been applied in
`
` 2 horizontal wells, right?
`
` 3 A. Some techniques that were used in vertical
`
` 4 wells were applied in horizontal wells, yes.
`
` 5 Q. Acidizing is one of those, correct?
`
` 6 A. Yes.
`
` 7 Q. Hydraulic fracturing is also one?
`
` 8 A. Yes.
`
` 9 Q. Prior to the invention date, tools that were
`
` 10 used in vertical wells had also been used in horizontal
`
` 11 wells, correct?
`
` 12 A. Yes.
`
` 13 Q. Including packers?
`
` 14 A. Yes.
`
` 15 Q. And circulation devices?
`
` 16 A. Yes.
`
` 17 Q. You don't understand Baker Hughes's position
`
` 18 to be that it would have made sense to frac every open
`
` 19 hole, right?
`
` 20 A. No.
`
` 21 Q. Had I ended that with "correct" instead of
`
` 22 "right," would you have said yes? I'm trying to make
`
` 23 sure I understand what "no" means. Do you want me to
`
` 24 read it again?
`
` 25 A. Sure.
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 13 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`14
`
` 1 Q. Okay. So you don't understand Baker Hughes to
`
` 2 be alleging that it would have been obvious to frac
`
` 3 every open hole, correct?
`
` 4 A. Is it correct that Baker -- you're asking if
`
` 5 it's correct or not, true or false, that Baker would
`
` 6 think you needed to frac every open hole? Is that the
`
` 7 question?
`
` 8 Q. Is it correct that you don't understand them
`
` 9 to be taking that position?
`
` 10 A. I don't think they're taking that position,
`
` 11 no.
`
` 12 Q. Just the ones in which the wellbore was stable
`
` 13 and drilled close to gauge, correct?
`
` 14 A. They're only going to frac open holes that are
`
` 15 gauge? Is that the question?
`
` 16 Q. So I'm asking you if you understand Baker
`
` 17 Hughes's position to be that in the context of its
`
` 18 obviousness arguments, it's focused on using systems
`
` 19 from Thomson and the ones suggested in Lane Wells to
`
` 20 frac in an open hole that is stable and that is close
`
` 21 to gauge?
`
` 22 A. I don't think that has anything to do with
`
` 23 whether you frac your open hole or not.
`
` 24 Q. So whether the hole is stable is irrelevant to
`
` 25 whether it would make sense to frac it open?
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 14 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`15
`
` 1 A. Well, first off, you'd have to know that it
`
` 2 was stable before you did the frac, which you might not
`
` 3 know. You can run a slotted liner in the open hole and
`
` 4 hold the hole open that way. That's what's commonly
`
` 5 done. So I'm not sure what the two have to do with
`
` 6 each other.
`
` 7 Q. So the stability of a wellbore is irrelevant
`
` 8 to whether it makes sense to frac it open?
`
` 9 A. I didn't say that. You need -- ideally you'd
`
` 10 like to have a stable bore hole, but people frac lots
`
` 11 of bore holes that weren't completely stable.
`
` 12 Q. They frac them open?
`
` 13 A. Yes.
`
` 14 Q. And is it also your position that whether the
`
` 15 hole is drilled close to gauge doesn't have a bearing
`
` 16 on whether it makes sense to frac it open?
`
` 17 A. If you're not going to -- if you're not
`
` 18 worried about seating tools, no.
`
` 19 Q. If you're going to use the Thomson system,
`
` 20 you'd need to seat the packers, right?
`
` 21 A. Well, the Thomson system is a cased-hole
`
` 22 system. It's a work string inside of a casing.
`
` 23 Q. And if you are considering using the Thomson
`
` 24 system in an open hole, is it your position that
`
` 25 whether that hole is gauge or not doesn't make a
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 15 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`16
`
` 1 difference to whether it would make sense to use the
`
` 2 Thomson system in it?
`
` 3 A. Well, if you're going to run the Thomson
`
` 4 system in the open hole, you would be concerned about
`
` 5 irregularities in the bore hole and whether it was,
`
` 6 quote/unquote, gauge, whatever that's supposed to mean.
`
` 7 Q. What does gauge mean to you?
`
` 8 A. Well, when you run the bit in the hole it has
`
` 9 a certain size and if the hole is roughly the size of
`
` 10 the bit that's used to drill it, you can say that
`
` 11 that's a gauge hole. That's kind of the common
`
` 12 vernacular, as I understand it.
`
` 13 Q. Are you aware of any literature in the prior
`
` 14 art that explicitly addresses the possibility of
`
` 15 open-hole multi-stage fracturing in a wellbore that's
`
` 16 stable and drilled close to gauge and that teaches that
`
` 17 such a wellbore should nevertheless be cemented and
`
` 18 cased if it's going to be fractured?
`
` 19 A. I think that's what these references that I've
`
` 20 got here would point to and some of the other
`
` 21 references in my report; that whether the hole is gauge
`
` 22 or not, I don't think has much to do with whether you
`
` 23 should cement it and perforate it to try to control
`
` 24 where the fracture initiates. So it's really
`
` 25 unrelated, I think. I don't think that they are
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 16 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`17
`
` 1 directly related to each other.
`
` 2 Q. So all three of the papers that we talked
`
` 3 about earlier are examples of the type of literature
`
` 4 I just asked you about. That's your position.
`
` 5 A. Refresh my memory which three papers? Are we
`
` 6 talking about --
`
` 7 Q. If you --
`
` 8 A. -- Owens and Pitts and -- the ones in my
`
` 9 report here?
`
` 10 Q. Right, the three that are in Section 10. And
`
` 11 I believe it's Owens, Murray and one other.
`
` 12 A. Let's see.
`
` 13 Q. Austin. And the numbers are -- Exhibit 2098
`
` 14 is Austin.
`
` 15 A. Do you mind if I look at those papers?
`
` 16 Q. Not at all.
`
` 17 A. Thank you. Could you repeat the question,
`
` 18 please?
`
` 19 Q. Are you aware of any literature in the prior
`
` 20 art that explicitly addresses the possibility of
`
` 21 open-hole multi-stage fracturing in a wellbore that's
`
` 22 stable, drilled close to gauge, and teaches that such a
`
` 23 wellbore should nevertheless be cemented and cased if
`
` 24 it's going to be fractured?
`
` 25 A. I haven't seen anything in the literature that
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 17 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`18
`
` 1 would make me think that those two were directly
`
` 2 related, so I don't believe that's what the literature
`
` 3 says.
`
` 4 Q. So is the answer no?
`
` 5 A. I'd have to qualify it and say that I don't
`
` 6 think the question makes a lot of sense and no.
`
` 7 Q. Are you aware of any literature in the prior
`
` 8 art or since that explicitly teaches away from
`
` 9 open-hole fracturing, because open-hole fracturing
`
` 10 causes near wellbore tortuosity?
`
` 11 A. Well, there are -- there are references that
`
` 12 talk about problems with open-hole fracturing and some
`
` 13 of the uncertainty that's related to that. And it also
`
` 14 has to do with whether you're drilling a longitudinal
`
` 15 well where you're drilling parallel to the fracture
`
` 16 plane or whether you're trying to create transverse
`
` 17 fractures, which I believe a POSITA would have been
`
` 18 focused on drilling perpendicular to the primary
`
` 19 fracture azimuth in creating transverse fractures.
`
` 20 So there is literature that I've seen
`
` 21 that talks about reducing wellbore tortuosity by
`
` 22 drilling a longitudinal -- drilling to create a
`
` 23 longitudinal frac, but that's not actually what I
`
` 24 believe a POSITA would be motivated to do. I think
`
` 25 they would be motivated to create transverse fractures
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 18 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`19
`
` 1 consistent with creating the largest stimulated
`
` 2 reservoir volume possible.
`
` 3 Q. So the longitudinal frac that you mentioned is
`
` 4 a paper that's advocating open-hole fracturing, right?
`
` 5 A. Right. And essentially what -- I'm trying to
`
` 6 remember which paper that is.
`
` 7 Q. I think that's called the Ellis paper. Does
`
` 8 that sound right?
`
` 9 A. I think that's right, yes. So they --
`
` 10 essentially what they're doing is just extending the
`
` 11 reach of a single stage in that scenario to where
`
` 12 they're using the horizontal well to create a stress
`
` 13 concentrator essentially that allows them to extend the
`
` 14 reach of their horizontals -- I mean, sorry, of their
`
` 15 frac so that they get a longer fracture.
`
` 16 But it's really just a single zone frac
`
` 17 or single stage rather as opposed to the -- what we're
`
` 18 talking about with this particular invention is
`
` 19 creating transverse fractures. So it's really two
`
` 20 different things.
`
` 21 Q. So -- but that's not a paper that fits the
`
` 22 question, right?
`
` 23 A. I think it relates to it or it's -- I'm trying
`
` 24 to answer the question completely.
`
` 25 Q. So the question was, are you aware of any
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 19 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`20
`
` 1 literature in the prior art or since that explicitly
`
` 2 teaches away from open-hole fracture as open-hole
`
` 3 fracture causes near wellbore tortuosity?
`
` 4 A. I did read in the literature references to
`
` 5 potential problems with the creation of multiple
`
` 6 fractures that are randomly situated within an
`
` 7 open-hole section that more or less act as thief zones,
`
` 8 so you would lose your -- you'd lose part of your
`
` 9 fluid, part of your pad, and by dividing it up over
`
` 10 multiple fractures in an uncontrolled fashion.
`
` 11 So the pad is what creates the hydraulic
`
` 12 fracture that you're inducing, not the proppant. So
`
` 13 the pad creates the proppant and you have to control
`
` 14 leak-off. And then you place the proppant in that
`
` 15 fracture is the typical design, especially at this
`
` 16 particular time we're talking about.
`
` 17 So I can't remember exactly which
`
` 18 references, I'd have to go back through my report and
`
` 19 try to pick out the references, but I do recall there
`
` 20 was a discussion about problems with having your
`
` 21 uncontrolled leak-off essentially that could cause a
`
` 22 screen-out.
`
` 23 As opposed to being able to use casing
`
` 24 where you've got perforations and you can do limited
`
` 25 entry and you can control the pressure drop across that
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 20 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`21
`
` 1 and maintain frac pressures and try to distribute the
`
` 2 frac over the interval in a more controlled fashion.
`
` 3 So -- but it would take me a little while
`
` 4 to find the exact references and where I talk about
`
` 5 that in my report.
`
` 6 Q. Take the time that you need. I want to know
`
` 7 what reference you're talking about.
`
` 8 A. Okay. I'll find it. Is this my report?
`
` 9 MR. NEMUNAITIS: It's Exhibit 2050.
`
` 10 MR. GARRETT: It is 2081, I believe.
`
` 11 A. This is the new one?
`
` 12 Q. (BY MR. GARRETT) Yes.
`
` 13 A. Okay.
`
` 14 (Pause.)
`
` 15 A. I don't think -- do we have all these -- do we
`
` 16 have all these papers available for me to look at or --
`
` 17 Q. (BY MR. GARRETT) Absolutely. You tell me a
`
` 18 paper and I'll let you look at it.
`
` 19 A. Okay. Let's see.
`
` 20 Q. If we need to print something, we will.
`
` 21 A. Well, I've got -- this would be Emanuele 1998,
`
` 22 case history, "Completion and Stimulation of Horizontal
`
` 23 Wells in Multiple Transverse Hydraulic Fractures."
`
` 24 There's another one here, Gaynor 2001, "Tortuosity
`
` 25 Versus Micro Tortuosity." Let's see.
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 21 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`22
`
` 1 Q. So what you are referring to for the Emanuele
`
` 2 paper, which line is that?
`
` 3 A. That's number 13 on the references page on
`
` 4 2050.
`
` 5 Q. 2050. So is there anything -- let's -- let's
`
` 6 start with 2081.
`
` 7 A. Well, I can't remember which one of these
`
` 8 papers. I mean, I remember reading this, but I don't
`
` 9 remember which paper it was in.
`
` 10 Q. I assume that if it was important you would
`
` 11 have cited it and explained it; is that right?
`
` 12 A. I don't know how to respond to that. I mean,
`
` 13 it entered into my thinking, whatever I read entered
`
` 14 into my thinking. I don't know that I cited every
`
` 15 single thing that I thought about.
`
` 16 Q. Did you cite the most relevant papers to your
`
` 17 position?
`
` 18 A. I did -- I cited references I thought were
`
` 19 relevant. I didn't -- I didn't write them, I don't
`
` 20 believe. So maybe we could back up and you could tell
`
` 21 me -- the question was --
`
` 22 Q. Are you aware of any literature in the prior
`
` 23 art or since that explicitly teaches away from
`
` 24 open-hole fracturing, because open-hole fracturing
`
` 25 causes near wellbore tortuosity? And so what I want
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 22 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
` 1 you to do --
`
`23
`
` 2 A. Okay, yeah, so let me think about that for a
`
` 3 sec. Okay. So this is the paper -- do you have the
`
` 4 Ellis paper available?
`
` 5 Q. I do not, but we can get it. But what I
`
` 6 would -- what I'd like -- I'd like to do this, is I
`
` 7 would like you to start with your report that's in
`
` 8 Exhibit 2081 and tell me if you cite any such papers in
`
` 9 that report.
`
` 10 A. Let me just read through the paper.
`
` 11 (Pause.)
`
` 12 A. So did we -- do we have some of these other
`
` 13 papers from the first report?
`
` 14 Q. (BY MR. GARRETT) We can -- we can get them.
`
` 15 Can we go through your 2017 declaration first, though?
`
` 16 (Discussion out of the hearing of the
`
` 17 reporter.)
`
` 18 A. This is one thing I recall was that -- I guess
`
` 19 I refer to that --
`
` 20 (Pause.)
`
` 21 A. I talk about this a little bit on page 24 of
`
` 22 51, and what they're talking about is the competition
`
` 23 for fracturing fluids, so -- so if you have minor
`
` 24 fractures which compete for fracturing fluid and
`
` 25 ultimately are unable to propagate and extend. So
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 23 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`24
`
` 1 that's what I was talking about just a minute ago.
`
` 2 Q. (BY MR. GARRETT) And just so the record is
`
` 3 clear, you're referring to -- there is a bolded
`
` 4 sentence --
`
` 5 A. Yes.
`
` 6 Q. -- at line 7 to 10 of page 24 of 51 of
`
` 7 Exhibit 2081.
`
` 8 A. Yes. That's just one reference. I can -- it
`
` 9 isn't the exact one I was thinking about, but that's
`
` 10 one of the concerns that I think a POSITA would have is
`
` 11 the fact that you've got multiple entry points, so --
`
` 12 Q. And so that we're clear on this, that's
`
` 13 because based on what you know the sentence is talking
`
` 14 about an open-hole interval; is that right?
`
` 15 A. I think it would apply to an open-hole
`
` 16 interval.
`
` 17 Q. And the part that would apply would be the
`
` 18 several minor fractures which compete for fracturing
`
` 19 fluid and ultimately are unable to propagate and
`
` 20 extend, right?
`
` 21 A. Right.
`
` 22 Q. So that sentence comes from the Murray
`
` 23 reference, which is Exhibit 2100.
`
` 24 A. Yes.
`
` 25 Q. And --
`
`Lexitas
`
`Page 24 of 170
`
`
`
`Harold E. McGowen III
`
`25
`
` 1 A. There's probably other -- the other
`
` 2 referencing I was thinking about are from the previous
`
` 3 report.
`
` 4 Q. Do you know if Murray cites a source for that
`
` 5 statement?
`
` 6 A. There's a set of references for that report,
`
` 7 so I don't know for sure. Let's see. We can look.
`
` 8 (Pause.)
`
` 9 Q. (BY MR. GARRETT) So did you look through
`
` 10 Murray to see what references are cited?
`
` 11 A. I probably did at the time that I was working
`
` 12 on the report.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
