WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.
`
`EXHIBIT 1014
`
`
`
`WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.
`V.
`
`
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`
`OPEl"IA'l1NG GOMPANY. Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`i’.@?
`Ii-‘fiia;
`
`Ifijimi;
`
`Ifri-It‘eTs,r0~:;'ac$.r:
`
`Halliburton Energy Services,
`Inc. and Halliburton Group
`Canada
`vs
`
`Packers Plus Energy Services,
`|nc., at al
`
`Cause No. CV-44964
`
`Midland County,
`Texas
`
`‘ The Habit! Building, Suite E-
`200
`5 3100 Nonh "A"
`
`3 Midland, TX 79705-5367
`'
`(432)686-0022
`3
`(432)686-2034 Fax
`
`HES-PP_000174
`
`HES-PP_000174
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1014
`
`
`
`WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.
`V.
`
`
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`
`OPEl"IA'l1NG GOMPANY. Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`i’.@?
`Ii-‘fiia;
`
`Ifijimi;
`
`Ifri-It‘eTs,r0~:;'ac$.r:
`
`Halliburton Energy Services,
`Inc. and Halliburton Group
`Canada
`vs
`
`Packers Plus Energy Services,
`|nc., at al
`
`Cause No. CV-44964
`
`Midland County,
`Texas
`
`‘ The Habit! Building, Suite E-
`200
`5 3100 Nonh "A"
`
`3 Midland, TX 79705-5367
`'
`(432)686-0022
`3
`(432)686-2034 Fax
`
`HES-PP_000174
`
`HES-PP_000174
`
`
`
`Engineering Report
`by Ronald A. Briiton
`
`3
`
`OHI
`\ LL
`
`Ol3ElA'|'|llD ED!-IBINV. Llzl
`
`for
`
`Cause No. CV-44964
`
`In The 238"‘ Judicial District of
`
`Midland County, Texas
`
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. and Halliburton Group Canada
`vs.
`
`Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.; Packers Pllus Energy Services, Inc. USA; Packers Plus
`Energy Services (U.S.A.) Limited Partnership;
`Daniel Themig; Peter Krabben; and Kenneth Paltzat
`
`Established safety management procedures and industry practices and standards have been followed
`to form the following opinions. In forming those opinions, the basic methodology of a systematic
`approach utilizing the scientific method was used.
`First,
`the need was recognized for an
`investigation. Second, the problem was defined. The next step was to collect data. The empirical
`data reviewed was the discovery in this case. Also reviewed were pleadings, depositions and
`exhibim. The fourth step was to analyze the data by inductive reasoning. After a careful review of all
`the factual information, proven technologies were then employed to look at the procedures and
`equipment used at the time; management techniques and other skills such as human factors to review
`the job assignment, experience and performance of the individuals who may have been involved;
`how the subject operation, equipment and procedures fit with industry practice and standards at the
`time; how the procedures and operations fit with applicable regulations; and how design, industry
`standards and equipment placement relate to this case. The fifth step was to develop a hypothesis,
`which was based on the data analysis. Lastly, the hypothesis was tested using deductive reasoning;
`that is, comparing the hypothesis to all known facts.
`
`-Page 2-
`
`HES-PP_000175
`
`HES-PP_000175
`
`
`
`R
`
`oHI
`
`'-L
`
`DFI:1M'lhO EU?-IFAIIY Lin.
`
`Halliburton vs Packers Plus
`
`* Supplemental Fleport * August 20, 2008
`
`This report is meant to supplement my original report dated April 27, 2007. My
`
`opinions and conclusions in my previous report have not changed. My additional opinions
`
`are based on the review of additional materials I have now received and reviewed in this
`
`case.
`
`Mr. Berryman's comments in his supplemental report provided to us on August 8,
`
`2008, page 40 quotes paragraph 27 of my April 27, 2007 report.
`
`The liberties Mr.
`
`Berryman, and those who have retained him, take with my report underscores the difficulty
`
`Halliburton has in developing factual evidence to support its case. Mr. Berryman’s quote
`
`as referenced above, is taken completely out of context- One intent of my April 27 report
`
`was to expand on the six areas shown on page 4. Paragraph 4 states:
`
`"Based on years of direct field experience in the operational side of the oil
`and gas industry,
`I have a unique perspective to address many of the
`allegations that Halliburton has made against the Defendants in this case.
`I have direct knowledge and experience of many of the practices and
`procedures that Halliburton claims as the basis for its allegations in the
`referenced lawsuit, including, but not limited to, the following:
`
`‘I
`
`.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ability to reverse engineer products that have entered the
`stream of commerce;
`The perception in the field that a product, its characteristics,
`components and dimension, once they enter the stream of
`commerce, are no longer confidential or subject to trade secret
`protection;
`The general understanding of companies that they cannot
`expect to protect trade secrets on a product that has entered
`
`-Page 3»
`
`HES-PP_000176
`
`HES-PP_000176
`
`
`
`H
`
`OH!
`LL
`
`DP E1A11M£l GDIJPAIIY Ltd
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`the stream of commerce;
`The general and specific standards that a company needs to
`apply to ensure that its employees, contractors and customers
`protect company secrets, and whether Halliburton has followed
`those standards;
`The nature of the FtockSeal packer and whether it was
`perceived in the field as a new invention that radically departed
`from prior art; and
`Whether any of the items relied on by Mr. Berryman in his
`report can be said to be trade secrets and how easily that
`information can be accessed by persons in the field.
`
`My report addresses each of the foregoing items and others from an
`operational and industry perspective; addressing how members of the
`industry, similarly situated to myself, would respond to each of
`the
`substantive allegations of Halliburton in this case based on our experience
`of actual field practice by Halliburton and other major companies."
`
`My use of the term “innovative ideas” was again taken out of context. It is also
`
`important to note that the “Themig Contract" on which Halliburton relies was first produced
`
`a month after my April 2007 report was tendered. Based on the testimony as represented
`
`by Hallliburton, they could not find most of Mr. Themig's employment records for well over
`
`two years. This further supports Halliburton’s lack of control and procedures for
`
`confidential and proprietary information.
`
`The tools referenced in Mr. Berryman’s report are not as narrowly focused as Mr.
`
`Berryman would have one believe. Many tools that were originally designed as cased hole
`
`tools can and have been used in open hole situations.
`
`It is clear that Mr. Berryman is not
`
`familiar with actual oilfield operations as he would be aware of this fact.
`
`In many deep hole
`
`-Page 4-
`
`HES-PP_000177
`
`HES-PP_000177
`
`
`
`ROHI
`
`'1.
`
`CF EMHIIB GDEAPAIIY. LII1
`
`situations, a deep open hole acts in the same manner as a cased hole. Consequently,
`
`many of the tools designed for cased hole applications would be used in open hole
`
`applications.
`
`From an operational standpoint Mr. Berryman’s distinctions regarding
`
`applications is unfounded in fact.
`
`Any opinions expressed in this report are subject to change and revision pending
`
`my receipt and review of additional materials, as discovery is still ongoing.
`
`I do retain the
`
`right to alter, modify, change, or add to these opinions and conclusions as further evidence
`
`becomes available on this case.
`
`I will, of course, reserve the unilateral right to amend my
`
`report at such time as that happens and I deem it necessary.
`
`I reserve the right to further
`
`supplement my report or expand on these concepts at trial.
`
`-Page 5-
`
`HES-PP_000178
`
`HES-PP_000178
`
`
`
`Fl
`
`OH:
`
`L
`
`L
`
`UFETAYUID E3!-‘FIN V ill!
`
`1 am the owner of Rohill Operating Company, Ltd, an independent engineering
`
`consulting firm specializing in petroleum engineering.
`
`I am a registered professional
`
`engineer in the states of Texas and Oklahoma- Rohill Operating Company, Ltd. is certified
`
`as a registered professional engineering firm by the Texas Board. The firm registration
`
`Number is F-001566.
`
`zéwm. /afiré
`
`Ronald A. Britton, P.E.
`TX PE # 29472
`
`OK PE # 11750
`DABFE # 911
`DABFET # 1267'
`
`SIPES # 2730
`
`RAB:dd
`
`Enclosures
`
`-Page 6-
`
`HES-PP_000179
`
`HES-PP_000179
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
