WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.
`
`EXHIBIT 1013
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
`
`WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.
`V.
`
`NO. cv.44,964
`
`HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES,
`INC. and HALLIBURTON GROUP
`CANADA,
`Plaintiffs
`
`VS.
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES,
`INC; PACKERS PLUS ENERGY
`SERVICES, INC. USA; PACKERS PLUS
`ENERGY SERVICES (U.'S.A.) LIMITED
`PARTNERSHIP; -DANIEL THEMIG;
`PETER KRABBEN; and KENNETH
`PALTZAT.
`Defendants
`
`§
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
`
`MIDLAND COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`238m. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`FIRST SUPPI.EM'ENT
`
`E V.
`
`August 21, 2008
`
`RC_RAP00001595
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1013
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
`
`WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.
`V.
`
`NO. cv.44,964
`
`HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES,
`INC. and HALLIBURTON GROUP
`CANADA,
`Plaintiffs
`
`VS.
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES,
`INC; PACKERS PLUS ENERGY
`SERVICES, INC. USA; PACKERS PLUS
`ENERGY SERVICES (U.'S.A.) LIMITED
`PARTNERSHIP; -DANIEL THEMIG;
`PETER KRABBEN; and KENNETH
`PALTZAT.
`Defendants
`
`§
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
`
`MIDLAND COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`238m. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`FIRST SUPPI.EM'ENT
`
`E V.
`
`August 21, 2008
`
`RC_RAP00001595
`
`
`
`Tgglg of Qantggts
`
`I.
`
`Opening Comments
`
`...........
`
`......... .,..............
`
`......
`
`11.
`
`Cased Hole vs Open Hole ..............................
`
`...............
`
`pg
`
`.3
`
`pg.
`
`4
`
`III. Conception of Packer'with_ Rockseal II hydraulic set packer
`
`features ......................................................................................... ..
`
`pg. 9
`
`Iv.
`
`Evidence withheld by expert & Halliburton ._ ............... pg. 10
`
`Functionality of Rockseal II hydraulic set»
`V.
`packer..............................
`........
`................................
`
`.....
`
`......... .. pg. 11
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`faclcing Elements ..............................
`
`....................
`
`pg. 12
`
`Actuation Device.................. ................................ .. pg. 16
`
`Locking Device...................
`
`....................................... .. pg. 15
`
`Anti-preset Device. ........
`
`......................
`
`...........
`
`.... .. pg. 17
`
`VI. Prior Art: ............
`
`............................. .,............................... .. pg.'21
`
`VII. Patent ‘505 and Application ‘863 ..........................
`
`.... ..
`
`pg. 23
`
`VIII. Themig Contract .......................
`
`..................................
`
`pg. 24
`
`IX.
`
`Patentability
`
`.................................................................. .. pg. 27
`
`X.
`
`conclusions
`
`...................
`
`....................,.., ..................... .. pg. 28
`
`Attachments
`
`1. Brown Oil Tools HS-16-1 catalog pages (zpages)
`
`2. 1.7.5. Patent 4,716,967 (9 pages)
`
`3. US. Patent 4,791,992‘ (12 pages)
`
`4. U.S. Patent 5,197,547 (18 pages)
`
`5. U.S. Patent 5,775,429 (14 pages)
`
`6. U.S. Patent 6,543,545 (9 pages)
`
`ts)
`
`RC_RAP00001596
`
`
`
`‘I.
`
`Opening Comments
`
`I hereby incorporate by reference my prior Affidavit tiled in support ofPackers Plus’
`
`Response to I-Ial1r“ourto.n,"s Partial Motion‘ for Summary Judgement and all opinions
`
`expressed in it,. as wellas all exhibits and attachments to my Affidavit. This
`
`supplemental report is being submitted in ad'dition“to my originai report dated April 27,
`
`2007 and my Affidavit dated May 19, 2008. The purpose of this supplemental report is
`
`to correct errors and misrepresentations, shed light and provide clarity on many issues
`
`that Mr. William Ber-ryman, plaintiffs expert witness, vi/rites about in his original report
`dated March 18.. 2007 and his suppiementnl report submitted in August of2008!
`
`Mr. Berryman has "taken great liberties in his reports that couidbe misleading to a person
`
`that is not skilled in the art of oil and gas well completion and the tools that are applied
`
`for this purpose.
`
`It is critical to the integrity of this case that those thatpresent themselves as experts must
`
`put forth facts, evidence, experience and opinions in an objective, forthright, and
`
`transparent manner. Due to this it is important that I clarify and correct some things that
`
`have been inaccurately documented by others. As a point of clarity I must refute a liethat
`
`has been put forth by Mr. Berrymzm in his supplemental report. On page 40 of his
`
`«supplemental report Mr.jBerryman states that he and I agree “that the Rockseal invention
`
`is an invention‘, development, and innovation under 'I'l1emig’s‘ contract." His statementgis
`
`a lie. I have not, in any report, afifidavit, or by any other means, whether verbal or
`
`written, characterized the Rookseal II hydraulic set paclceras an invention, development,
`
`or innovation, and therefore do not agree with his opinion.
`
`RC_RAP00001597
`
`
`
`Also, it has recently come to light that there is evidence that Mr. Berryman and
`
`Halliburton should have been supplying through the discovery processin this case.
`
`‘II.
`
`Ogen hole versus Cased hole
`
`Mr. Berryman has. expended significant effort in attempting to show that tools that were
`
`initially’ designed for cased hole -would not be applicable for use in open hole. This point
`
`could be construed as intentionally misleading.
`
`it is importantto‘ have an understanding of what -constitutes cased hole as well as open
`
`hole in order to provide clarity to the situation at hand. Open ‘hole is .a borehole that is
`
`drilled through the ‘fonnations of earth. The open hole remains as ‘open hole until some
`
`sortof pipe, whether made of steel or other material, is inserted into the ‘open hole in
`
`order to provide stability to the borehole. Once the pipe, typically referred to as casing in
`
`the industry, is installed" inside ofthe open hole than the portion of the open hole that
`
`contains‘ the supporting casing is referred to as cased hole.
`
`Open hole and cased hole are both substantieilly circular in cross section. The only
`
`substantial difference is that the inner wall of cased hole is typically made of steel and the
`
`inner wall of the open hole is made from formations ofearth, or rock. Tools that are
`
`initially designed for cased hole are manufactured to perform in substantially circular
`
`cross section holes that arehard enough and strong enough to provide necessary support
`
`for sealing (typically createdby some sort of packing element) and anchoring (typicaily
`
`RC_RAP00001598
`
`
`
`created by some sort of slip andrcone mechanism). It is worth noting that not every tool
`
`designed for sealing requires an anchoring device on the tool. Ifanchoring is required for
`
`£1 specific application, then anchoring may be provided by a separate tool in the same
`
`string of tools or in combination with the single element on a single tool. And, not every
`
`tool that is designed to be an anchor requiresa sealing mechanism.
`
`The stability of the open hole is largely dependent upon the fonnationsiin which open
`
`hole exists. Rock formations in many cases are extremely hard and stable. In these cases
`
`the rock is highly compressed due to pressure exerted on the took over millions ofyears
`
`of formation. There are also sand formations that can be less consolidated and less
`
`stable. These lesststable fornmtions are more susceptible to having “wash outs” or areas
`
`that are substantially non circular in cross section atter being drilled.
`
`The hard rock formations, once drilled, typically provide a circular cross section conduit,
`
`just as a cased hole does. in these types ofhard fonnations a too} that was designed for
`
`use in cased hole may be used in open hole. The fact is that many tools, including
`
`anchoring mechanisms and packing elements, that were initially designed for cased hole,
`
`with no contemplation ofbeing used in open hole, have been used in open hole
`
`successfully. It is a fact that many tools which utilized compression set elastomeric solid
`
`packing elements have been used in open hole. Mr. Berryman, in his original report,
`
`indicated that these types of packing element arrangements were initially designed for
`
`cased hole and that they are now being used in open hole. In fact this is exactly what
`
`Guiberson /Halliburton has done successfully for many years by use ofits original
`
`RC_RAP00001599
`
`
`
`Wizard type packer designs. Mr. Berryman has excluded these «facts from his
`
`supplemental report.
`
`It is noteworthy to point outthet downhole tools are often utilized his way in which they
`
`were not originally intended. And doing so does not necessarily constitute innovation,
`
`invention, or development. It is not my intention, at this point in the report, to convey
`
`that the prior art tools have the same functionality that is contained in the Rockseal II
`
`hydraulic set packer, the Benrfoot, and the Wizard 111 packers. My intention is to convey
`
`the fact that downhole tools which were initially designed for cased hole can be. and have
`
`been, utilized in open hole. I have personal experience of such installations and look
`
`forward to testifying as such at trial.
`
`In addition to my experience and knovvledge of casedhole and open hoie tools, there are
`
`other references that can be used to substantiate my opinions. Included in this report are
`
`patents which have been issued that provide language regarding the use of “hook -wall"
`
`packers, known by those skilled in the artvto be regarded as cased hole tools, as open hole
`
`packers. Hnlliburton has patents that reveal this type of language which could lead one to
`
`opine that Hallihurton agrees with my assessment regarding the applicability of‘cased
`
`hole packets in open hole.
`
`The first patent that substantiates my opinion is 11.3. patent is 4,716,967. The patent
`
`states “27:’ere are. however, some parts aflheworld where oilfield completions are
`
`lzabitually in the open hole. For exanzple, in Ken!ucky., the Sm;/Zzce hole is drilled with
`
`RC_RAP00001600
`
`
`
`mm! and surface pipe set to close ’0flflllfbCe watersands. Below the Sm;/hoe pipe, the
`
`hole is typically drilled with air. either by using a cable tool rig or an air rotary rig. [fa
`
`productive section is etzoozmtered, the well begins toproduce through the baloee line so
`
`that the an-tozmt and type ofproduction can be estimated. lfit is desired to complete a
`
`well in this section, the bit is retnavedfirom the hole, and tubing is run into the well. A
`
`hook wall packer is seated against the wall ofthe‘ bore hole ‘and the well is producer! up
`
`the tubing string in a somewhat unusual manner ‘which happens to be typicalfor this
`
`area. .” This language is selfexpiantmry and it-is my opinion that anvexpjert skilled in the
`
`art of packets would opine that it is typical in certain parts of the world to run a hook wall
`
`packer (that was designed for use in eased hole) in open hole.
`
`The second patent. that substantiates my opinion is U.S. patent #5,1’97,S47 which applies
`
`to a wirelinc set packer tool arrangement. The patent states, “so the packer is capable of
`
`being set by a wireline pressure setting assembly when the packer tool is positionecl ‘in
`
`the opening in a tubular member _or1‘n open hole in so well bare without requt'rz'ngfurther
`
`manipulation ofthe packer tool. ” This language refers to a packet that is shown in the
`
`patent figures to have anchoring and sealing mechanisms that are the same as those that
`
`have been designed for cased hole. It is my opinion that the term “tubutar member"
`
`could refer to a well casing, whether casing or productitm tubing. The patent language
`
`substantiates"that this type dfpacker tool may be applied in open hole.
`
`The third patent that substantiates my opinion is U.S. patent #S,775,429 which applies to
`
`packer seaiing element that may be applied for manyapplications. The patent abstract
`
`RC_RAP00001601
`
`
`
`states, “For example, the packer can be applied to plugs, 10 llzraugla tubing mamlrals.
`
`and to other well tools in open hole or in cased wellbore ca1;figz:rations.” Again, this
`
`patent reveals the fact that a specific type of mechanism may be appliedlo both cased
`
`hole and open hole.
`
`The fourth patent that substantiates my opinion is US patent #6,49i,IO4, which is
`assigned to Halliburton. Itvrefers to a string of tools that include an open hole packet.
`
`The patent states, “The open-hale packer can be ofany lciud generally known in the art,
`
`such as a "hook-wall "packer. but is preferably a not:-mtating‘ iigflarable packer.” It is
`
`my opinion that this is an admission that a “hook-wall" packer can work in open hole
`
`assuming that the open hole is in a "form that. will ‘allow itto perform satisfactorily.
`
`The fifih patent that substantiates my opinion is U.S patent #6,543,545, which is also
`
`assigned to‘ Halliburton. Italso refers to 8 string of tools that include an open hole
`
`packer. The application of the tool string in this patent differs from the purpose of the
`
`tool string mentioned in the previous paragraph, however it also refers to useof an open
`
`hole packer as part of the tool string. The patent states, “Si:::ilar{)2, the open-hole packer
`
`may be ofany type known in the art such as a "haul: wall" packer are non-rotating
`
`inflatable packer." It is my opinion that this is another admission that a “hook—waIl"
`
`packer can work in open hole assuming that the opcnhole is in a form that will allow it to
`
`perform satisfactorily.
`
`RC_RAP00001602
`
`
`
`Based on this infonnation, it may be assumed that any expert who denies the idea that
`
`cased hoie tools can be, and have been, applied in open hole would be one.‘ who has a lack
`
`of knowledge, a lack of experience, or is not forthcoming with regard to this area of
`
`expertise.
`
`111.
`
`Conception ofgzlcker with fiocksenl II mdraulic set gnciger feaglres
`
`Benyman has stated in his supplemental "report that a packer’ that contains the
`
`features of the Rockseal II hydraulic set packer, or the features themselves were
`
`conceived or invented by Themig. Mr. Berrymarrs supplemental report makes this
`
`inaccurate insinuation at least 16 times.
`
`It is well known in the industry that the customer ofthe service company often times
`
`pushes the service company to tweak its existing tools in order to create something that
`
`the customer feels may be more applicable for the specific downhole environment that
`
`exists in the customers wells. After many years of utilizing certain types of the tools
`
`many customers become intirnately familiar with specific types oftools and can submit
`
`ideas on how to ‘tweak, tools in order. to solve customer specific issues.
`
`In this case a packer with all ofthe features of the Rockseal ‘II hydraulic set packer was
`
`conceived by :1 Husky Oil engineer, Marty Muir. Marty Muir specifically told Dale
`
`Fuller and Dan Thcmig that he wanted a packer with all of the features that have become
`
`the Rockseal I] hydraulic set packer, the Bcerfeot packer (sold by Innicor, formerly Polar
`
`RC_RAP00001603
`
`
`
`Completions), and the Wizard 11] packer (soldby Halliburton). Mary Muir, having
`
`intimate knowledge ofthe inner workings of the G-77 packer, specifically requested to
`
`Themig that Halliburtojn manufacture a packer for 'Husky"s application that utilized most
`
`ofthe features of the (3-77, except to make the small change of removing the upper slips
`
`and .exchanging the lower Slips with a second packing element. Mr. Benymaxfs Reports
`
`completely omit any discussion of this packer concept by Mr. Muir; nor does he refer to
`
`‘any of the evidence showing that Mr. Thenxig disclosed the concept to Halliburton as
`
`early as 1998. This constitutes a serious omissionfrom Mr. Berry-.man’s Reports.
`
`IV.
`
`Evidence with
`
`db. sex ert &tH Ill
`
`:1
`
`on"
`
`Brown Oil Tools was selling dual element packers -as early as 1962. It also had at least
`
`one patent that showsa dual element packer. Brown's I-IS-16-1. hydraulic set packer was
`
`sold for many years and was in Brown's marketing catalog from at least 1962 until 1969.
`
`1 came across this information‘ by a contact thatl worked with at Baker Hughes in years
`
`past. The Brown HS-16-l hydraulic set packer is an isolation packet that has the
`
`following fimctionalityz dual packing elements, spaced apart, on a single body;
`
`hydraulically actuated between the packing elements, locking mechanism, and a
`
`mechanism for reducing premature setting while running in the hole.
`
`Mr. Bexryman should have beennware of the existence ofthis tool because he was the
`
`vice president of engineering at Baker Service Tools at the time Brown Oil Tools was
`
`acquired and integrated into thc~Baker product lines. Many of the Brown Oil Tools
`
`10
`
`RC_RAP00001604
`
`
`
`products were integrated into the division of Baker Service Tools. As a vice president of
`
`engineering at Baker at the time this integration took place Mr. ‘Be:-ryman should have
`
`reviewed the Brown Oil Tool product lines for determining which tools would be
`
`integrated, replaced, redundant or obsolete.
`
`Additionally, Halliburton (Dresser) was assigned a patent (U.S. patent # 4,791,992) on a
`
`sl‘ip—less packer that references a Brown Oil 'l‘o.ol‘s dual clement packer patent (U.8.
`
`patent # 3,122,205). Halliburton should have supplied this evidence during the discovery
`
`process of this case.
`
`V.
`
`Functiolralitv of Rockscal §_I_ hxdruulig set gaggger
`
`The Rockscal II hydraulic set packer. the Bearfoot packet, and the Wizard I11 packer
`
`incorporate the same Afimctionality. These tools were designed specifically for
`
`applications‘ that did not'require external anchoring devices within the tool. The reason
`
`for this is that the application in which these tools were designed to be run assumed that
`
`there would be an anchoring ‘device in a separate tool that was run above these tools that
`
`would set inside the cased hole‘ that was located uphole from the open hole in which the
`
`Rockseal II hydraulic set packer, Bearfoot packer, or Wizard Ill packer would he set.
`
`The features of these packers include: two sealing elements spaced apart, hydraulic
`
`actuation between the scaling elements, locking mechanism, an nnt‘i—preset, all on a single
`
`body. All of these features also existed in the Brown HS-16-1 packer. How these
`
`features are constructed -is a decision left to the designer. It is possible for a designer to
`
`come up with an idea on how to construct a specific feature, however, it is more often the
`
`ll
`
`RC_RAP00001605
`
`
`
`case that the designer utilize construction methods that he/she maybe familiar with due
`
`to his/her experience with other tools that are in the stream of commerce. In this case all
`
`of-the features. ofthe above mentioned tools were constructed by use of pulalically known
`
`methods, and as a matter of faetall of these features have been used together in another
`
`tool.
`
`n.
`
`‘Packing flements
`
`Tliere have long been different types of packing elements utilized on packers within
`
`the oil and gasindustry. Compression set elements (like those used on the Rockseal
`
`II hydraulic set packer, the Bearfoot packer, the Wizard II packer, Wizard In packer,
`
`and Brown HS-16-1 packer), cup type elements (swab cup type), and inflatahletype
`
`elements are.the;3rnost recognized types ofpacker elenientsin the industry. There
`
`are other types and variations, but these are the most recognized and most usedin the
`
`industry. Compression set elements have long been used in both eased hole and open
`hole applications. Mr. Br-.rryma_n confesses that the type ofelements used for the
`
`Rockseal II hydraulic set packerand Wizard II packer were initially designed with the
`
`intent of being used in cased hole. And now they have been applied. in open hole. I
`
`agree with Mr. Berryman"s adrnissionthet packing elements, ‘as well as other types of'
`
`features that were initially designed for cased hole can he applied in open hole.
`
`Compression set elements were deployed in open hole before inflatable elements
`
`were developed. Compression set elements have some short comings in some open
`
`hole applications. Those applications where compression. set elements may not be
`
`reliable include, but are not limited to: open hole applications ‘where the open hole
`
`.12
`
`RC_RAP00001606
`
`
`
`diameter is significantly larger than the. cased hole: uphole from the open hole, open
`
`hole applications in which the open hole is not in a hard rock formation that may be
`
`conducive to wash out, or open hole applications in which the open hole may he so
`
`soft that the formation will move away from the setting element therefore not
`
`allowing the compression set element to maintain thenecessary stored energy for
`
`providing sealing integrity. Inflatable elements were initially designed in order to
`
`solve the issues sometimes encountered with the compression set elements when used
`
`in certain open hole. applications. Inflatable elements are elastic bladders that can be
`
`filled with different types of fluid media. Inflatable elements have been made in
`
`many lengths and with varying cliemetrical expansion ratios in an attempt to seal in
`
`specific customer open hole conditions". It is also well known in the industry that
`
`inflatable elements have been utilized in cased hole. An application for an inflatable
`
`element in cased holeiis provided when the packer must pass a significantly smaller
`
`diameterin the well bore and be set in a large diameter’ that resides somewhere below
`
`smaller diameter restriction. Through tubing tools are well known in the industry and
`
`often incorporate inflatable elements because the ppaclcer must deploy through a
`
`smaller production tubing string and set and seal reliably in the well casing that is
`
`below the bottom end of the production tubing string".
`
`The compression set element of the type used by the Rockseel '11 hydraulic set packer
`
`is not unique’ in anyway in comparison to other compression set elements. To state
`
`-that it is somehow unique inany way that makes itvmore applicable to open hole is
`
`simply misleading and totally. inaccurate. The fact is that there are l00‘s of
`
`13
`
`RC_RAP00001607
`
`
`
`compression set elements that function in exactly the same way as the element ‘type
`
`utilized on the Rockseal Ilhydraulic set packer. The reliability 'ofthe’type of
`
`compression set packing element utilized‘ on the Rookseal II hydraulic set. packer is
`
`totally dependent on the characteristics of the open hole in which it is applied.
`
`The redundant nature of providing two, or more packing elements on a single packer
`
`is helpfiil in open hole if abnormalities exist in concentrated areas. It is also helpful
`
`in cased hole as there may be existence of abnormalities in cased. hole. In many cases
`
`the well casing in which a packer isset may have an abnonnatity, or a void, areas!
`
`the each endof a joint (a singleypipe) of easing. Other abnormalities that may exist in
`
`well casing may be caused by the following: excessive rotating of a drill string inside
`
`the well casing. 21 manufacturing defect within the casing, failure ofthe well casing
`
`due to fonnation movement, failure of the ‘well casing due to excessive tensile or
`
`compressive loading, failure of the well easing‘ due to internal or external pressure, or
`
`corrosion of the well casing clue to incompatible well fluids. The point to be taken
`
`from this is that redundant'pac_l<ing elements improve reliability in cased hole and
`
`open "hole; In fact, in any well application, ifthere is greater opportunity for
`
`abnonnttlities to exist where n packer preferred to be set, then there a greater need for
`
`more effective sealing ‘area, and one way to accomplish this is through packing
`
`element redundancy. This is not a concept that is unique to open hole.
`
`Another advantage of dual packing elements is the fact that the packet components
`
`that reside between the packing elements may be protected from producing fluids
`
`14
`
`RC_RAP00001608
`
`
`
`over time, thus reducing corrosion issues that may impact the mechanical locking of
`
`the packer after setting. Also, ‘protection. from corrosion may assist in the retrieval of
`
`the packer at a later date.
`
`Mr. Benyman makes the point in his supplemental report that the dual elements may
`
`somehow increase the amount ofpressure that the packer may hold by virtue of a
`
`“two-stage sealing system". This point is completely misleading as itis my
`
`experience from testing 100's of compression set pacldng elements that a
`
`compression set packing element typically does not hold significantptessure once it
`
`begins to leak. And, because the “null zone" is so smallin volume, essentially all of
`
`the pressure that is opposite of the lealcing element would quicldy fill the “null zone”
`
`causing the holding element to withstand‘ all of the pressure that was opposite of the
`
`leaking element. Even it is-possible that the “two-stage sealing system” would
`
`perform as Ivlr. Berryrnan has indicated then many packers in existence‘ include the
`
`“two-stage sealing system". Obviously, the Brown HS-16-1 would perform in the
`
`same way. Also, many retrievable service packers include a. packing element stuck
`
`that utilizes multiple packing elements that are separated by at least a small spacer.
`
`These packers would also satisfy the concept of u “two-stagecl sealing system" even
`
`though they may have 8: smaller “null zone".
`
`To characterize the type ofpacking element utilized by the Rocks-eal ll hydraulic set
`
`packer as unique in comparison to other compression set elements is inaccurate.
`
`15
`
`RC_RAP00001609
`
`
`
`b. Actuation Device
`
`The actuation device-utilized by the Rcckseal ll hydraulic set packet was not
`
`conceived by Themig. Utilizing an actuating device that is hydraulically manipulated
`
`is yery common in the industry. Many tools, which are referenced in my earlier
`
`submitted affidavit, utilize a hydraulic setting device that sits between two packing
`
`elements. The Brown HS-16'-I packer utilizes the same type of setting mechanism. It
`
`is over'lapping.. Thesetting mechanism ensures that the full setting force is imparted
`
`to both sides of the actuating device, just as in the Rockseal If hydraulic set packer.
`
`This type of actuation device-‘is applicable to dual elementpackers, single element
`
`packers, and other types of tools for use in cased hole and open hole. It is not only
`
`applicable to open hole. Halhburton‘-s WizardiIII.‘which is functionally the same as
`
`the Rocksecl II hydraulic se.t.pac'ker utilizes the same type of actuation device that is
`
`used in the G-77.
`
`c. Locking Device.
`
`Most compression set packing element packers (including the Brown HS-16-1) have
`
`a locking mechanism for storing the energyinto the packing element after it is set and
`
`the setting force is removed. The type "of mechanical lock utilized in the Rockseal I1
`
`hydraulic set packer has been used in a large number ofM compression set packers. It is
`
`a ratcheting type lock. There have‘ been many different type of locking mechanisms
`
`used to store energy in packing elements or other devices. The type of locking
`
`mechanism used is simply a design choice made by the designer. The locking
`
`mechanism utilized by the Brown HS»-16-1 is common to packers manufactured by
`
`16
`
`RC_RAP00001610
`
`
`
`many other companies. The=extern'a‘l slips utilized on the Brown HS—l-‘6-l creates a
`
`lock that will continuously bite into the wall ofthc borehole as the tool strokes,
`
`therefore there isnc slack that must be absorbed by the packing elements. The
`
`Brown H846-1 utilizes this type of lock because it was designed with the additional
`
`feature of providing anchoring in the wellbore. This locking mechanism will work in
`
`open hole or cased hole.
`
`I know this to be a fact based on experience setting cast iron
`
`bridge plugs in open hole where extemnl slips were used as the mechanical locking
`
`mechanism. The fact that the.~Brown HS~l6.~1 was designed with on additional
`
`anchoring feature allowed for the packer to perform satisfactorily without an
`
`additional internal lock. If it were determined that a slip—.less~ packer were desired
`
`then it would be obvious to any experienced designer that the extemal slips could be
`
`replaced with the same internal locking mechanism used in many other packers in
`
`orderto store energy in the set packing elements.
`
`(1; Anti-greset device
`
`Antt’~preset devices are used on most packer designs. Their function is simply to
`
`allow a pecker to deployed to the desired setting depth within the wellbore without
`
`premature actuation, and then to Lmloclc the setting mechanism so the packer can be
`
`set at that point. It would be misleading to represent that tools intended for cased
`
`hole do not benefit from having such a device. If it were true that a cased hole packer
`
`would not benefit from such a device, then the Guiberson/Halliburtou G-77 would not
`
`have incorporated. such a device. This is further substantiated-»Mr. Be-rryman's
`
`l7
`
`RC_RAP00001611
`
`
`
`assertion that “The G-77 is a cased—l:oIe tooi and is not desigtzedfor use in open-hole
`
`qppIicat1'0ns" (pg 28 ofhis supplemental report).
`
`An anti-preset device is simply it mechanism that resists premature setting of a tool
`
`due to drag, caused by an obstruction, during the installation process. The obstruction
`
`may be atight spot. in thehole, whether cased or open. Drag may be caused by
`
`deviation of the well bore, whether in cased hole or open hole. It is well known in the
`
`industry that horizontal wellsare drilled and may be cased into the horizontal! section,
`
`or left as open hole depending on the competenceof the‘. formation. The point that
`
`must be made is that cased hole tools and open hole tools alike must be able to resist
`
`premature setting while running into horizontal sections ofa well. Many types of
`
`isolation packers, as well as other types of anchoring devices include a device for
`
`resisting premauzre setting. ‘It is lefi to the discretion of the designer to choose a type
`
`of mechanism that will work for a given design. For a -given design there are usually
`
`«several types of devices that are available-to the designer to choose fiom in order to
`
`provide resistance against premature actuation. A few of these are J-slot mechanisms,
`
`a locking collet, split rings, segmented rings, ball (or dog) andgroove, and shear pins
`
`(or screws). In the case of the Rockseal II hydraulic set packer, premature actuation is
`
`accomplished by using a “ball and groove’? device that has been utilized in many
`
`different tools, including packers, for many years. Sloane Muscrofi has stated in his
`
`affidavit dated.February I4, 2005, ‘iln my opirziou, based on my experience in the
`
`oilfield services industry, the application ofthese teclmiques amlprinciples to
`
`Packers’PIu,r' baIl—activated disrronnects and ball-aualgroove anti-preset system is
`
`18
`
`RC_RAP00001612
`
`
`
`not 1'nventz've q_fa11y new idea. ~ It is merely the application oflong-standing ideas and
`
`teclutiques la a parIicu.’ar reqza'remem." Mr. Muscroft submits many exhibits (at
`
`least 7) in his affidavit as proof that many tools that have ‘been in the stream of
`
`commerce have utilized 5. ball and groove device for the purpose ofreclucing
`
`incidences of premature actuation.
`
`Based an my knowledge of other tools that utilize the same mechanism and the
`
`submission of this evidence from Mr. Muscro1't,_I agree with Mr. Muscrofvs assertion
`
`that use of a ball and gcoove device in reduce premature actuation in the Rockseal I1
`
`hydraulic set packet is not unique in any way.
`
`The G-77 utilizes a mechanism for reducing prcmalmeiactuation that is similar to that
`
`of Rockseal II. hydraulic set packer. Regarding the 6-77, Mr. Berryman, in his
`
`supplemental report (p. 28) confesses that there are components other than the sealing
`
`element that require some means to hold the components in position until tubing
`
`pressure is applied to the packer. He goes on to state “_z‘fs.uch' means were not
`
`provided, the cone could be_'/breed up under the slip while the tool is being lowered
`
`into a well, potentially extemiiug the slips into engagerrzerit with the casing and
`
`cazising damage'tothe1ooI?’. “Extending the slips" refers to unwanted premature
`
`actuation of the tool, Additionally, Mr‘. Berryman -ignores that the upper external
`
`setting piston must also be locked. If it is not ioclced and the tool is run in a highly
`
`deviated well, then the upper external. setting piston could cause premature setting of
`
`the sealing element and the upper slip and cone.
`
`19
`
`RC_RAP00001613
`
`
`
`The anti-preset device utilized in the G.—77’could have been ‘utilized in the Roclcseal ll
`
`hydraulic set packet and the tool. would function in exactly the same way. As a
`
`matter of fact, I believe that the device utilized in the G-77 provides. a more robust
`
`lock, capable ofhandling aihigher load that would created by obstructions in. the
`
`wellbore. The reason is that the CH7 lock provides a larger bearing surface on which
`
`to distribute undesired loads while running into the well. The ball and groove device
`
`creates point loading on the halls and mating part. Point loading provides less
`
`hearing for distributing the load, meaning the ball and groove mechanism would fail.
`
`at :1 lower load fora comparably sized mechanism.
`
`I-Ia1liburton’s Wizard III, which is fiincfionally the same as the'R,oekseal II", hydraulic
`
`set packer, utilizes the same type of anti-preset device that is -used in the G—7"I.
`
`20
`
`RC_RAP00001614
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`Prior art
`
`In his supplemental report Mr. Berryman has submitted -an opinion that all of the tools
`
`that have been submitted as prior art are somehow different than the Rockseal ll
`
`hydraulic set packer. The fact ofthe matter is that all of the submitted prior art is
`
`pertinent and represent
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
