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, ) IPR2016-00596
` 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 2017, from 8:42 a.m. to 4:50 p.m.
`
` 20 before Jeff L. Foster, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
`
` 21 in and for the State of Texas, at the offices of
`
` 22 Caldwell, Cassady, Curry, 2101 Cedar Springs, Road,
`
` 23 Suite 1000, Dallas, Texas 75201, pursuant to the
`
` 24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions
`
` 25 stated on the record.
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 1 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`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, ) IPR2016-00596
` 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 2017, from 8:42 a.m. to 4:50 p.m.
`
` 20 before Jeff L. Foster, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
`
` 21 in and for the State of Texas, at the offices of
`
` 22 Caldwell, Cassady, Curry, 2101 Cedar Springs, Road,
`
` 23 Suite 1000, Dallas, Texas 75201, pursuant to the
`
` 24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions
`
` 25 stated on the record.
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 1 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:21)
`
` 1 A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` 2 THE PETITIONERS:
`
` 3 Mr. Mark T. Garrett
` NORTON, ROSE, FULBRIGHT US, LLP
` 4 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
` Austin, Texas 78701-4255
` 5 (512) 474-5201
` mark.garrett@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
` 6
`
` FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` 7
`
` Mr. Justin Nemunaitis
` 8 CALDWELL, CASSADY, CURRY
` 2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000
` 9 Dallas, Texas 75201
` (241) 888-4853
` 10 jnemunaitis@caldwellcc.com
`
` 11 ALSO APPEARING
`
` 12 Mr. David Guerra, videographer
` Mr. Darin Duphorne, by telephone
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 2 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:22)
`
` 1 I N D E X
`
` 2 PAGE
`
` 3 Appearances............................. 2
` HAROLD E. MCGOWEN III
` 4 Examination by Mr. Garrett 4
`
` 5 Signature Page.......................... 196
` Reporter's Certificate.................. 198
`
` 6
`
` EXHIBITS
`
` NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` Exhibit 1018............................... 120
` 9 qrySumNetValuebyFamily table
` Exhibit 1027............................... 120
` 10 qrySumNetValuebyFamily for IPR2016-00596
` Exhibit 1027............................... 120
` 11 qrySumNetValuebyFamily for IPR2016-00597
` Exhibit 1032............................... 178
` 12 Drawing for IPR2016-00657
` Exhibit 1032............................... 178
` 13 Drawing for IPR2016-00656
` Exhibit 1033............................... 180
` 14 Sketch made by witness regarding
` IPR2016-00656
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 3 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:23)
`
` 1 P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at
`
` 3 8:42 a.m., February 28th, 2017 for the deposition of
`
` 4 Harold -- for the deposition of Harold E. McGowen, III,
`
` 5 in the matter of Baker Hughes, Incorporated versus
`
` 6 Packers Plus Energy Services. Counsel, please state
`
` 7 your appearances and then the court reporter will
`
` 8 administer the oath.
`
` 9 MR. GARRETT: This is Mark Garrett for
`
` 10 the petitioners. With us on the phone is Darin
`
` 11 Duphorne, in-house counsel for the petitioners, and I'm
`
` 12 from Norton, Rose, Fulbright.
`
` 13 MR. NEMUNAITIS: And Justin Nemunaitis
`
` 14 with Caldwell, Cassady, Curry for the respondent.
`
` 15 HAROLD E. MCGOWEN, III,
`
` 16 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
` 17 EXAMINATION
`
` 18 BY MR. GARRETT:
`
` 19 Q. Mr. McGowen, this deposition is going to cover
`
` 20 six different proceedings pertaining to six different
`
` 21 patents. I'll name them so that we're all square on
`
` 22 that. The first is IPR2016-00596, which corresponds to
`
` 23 the '505 patent. The next is IPR2016-00597, which
`
` 24 corresponds to the '634 Patent. Next is
`
` 25 IPR2016-00598, which corresponds to the '774 Patent.
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 4 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:24)
`
` 1 Next is IPR2016-00650, which corresponds to the
`
` 2 '936 Patent. Next is IPR2016-00656, which corresponds
`
` 3 to the '009 Patent. And, finally, IPR2016-00657, which
`
` 4 corresponds to the '451 Patent.
`
` 5 Are we on the same page about that?
`
` 6 A. Well, I haven't memorized all those numbers,
`
` 7 so just have to -- have to proceed from here, I guess.
`
` 8 Q. Understood. Let's start with Ellsworth. I'll
`
` 9 hand you a copy. And this is Exhibit 1004 from the 596
`
` 10 proceeding. And for your understanding, when I refer
`
` 11 to the proceeding, the three numbers that I'm using are
`
` 12 the 596, the 597, the 598, any of the last three
`
` 13 numbers of the IPR.
`
` 14 A. I'm sorry, could you say that one more time?
`
` 15 Q. Yeah. So if I refer to a proceeding, like the
`
` 16 596 proceeding, I'm referring to that IPR number that's
`
` 17 IPR2016-00596. But I'm also talking about the patent
`
` 18 in that proceeding.
`
` 19 A. Okay.
`
` 20 Q. Which for the 596 is the '505 Patent.
`
` 21 A. Okay.
`
` 22 Q. Would it help to refer to just the patent
`
` 23 numbers as opposed to --
`
` 24 A. Actually, it would, yes.
`
` 25 Q. That's what I'll do. You've read and are
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 5 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:25)
`
` 1 familiar with Ellsworth, correct?
`
` 2 A. Yes.
`
` 3 Q. The second case history concerns a well that
`
` 4 is depicted in figure 7 on page 5 of Ellsworth; is that
`
` 5 correct?
`
` 6 A. So it says -- on page 4 of 9 it says, "Case
`
` 7 History Number Two"? Is that the one you're referring
`
` 8 to?
`
` 9 Q. It is the one I'm referring to. And if you
`
` 10 toggle to page 5, the first paragraph of the first
`
` 11 column of that page --
`
` 12 A. Yes.
`
` 13 Q. -- refers to figure 7. Do you see that?
`
` 14 A. I do, yes.
`
` 15 Q. So do you agree with me that figure 7 is the
`
` 16 well that pertains to case history number two --
`
` 17 A. Yes.
`
` 18 Q. -- in Ellsworth? The toe of that well
`
` 19 intersects a productive zone as shown in figure 7; is
`
` 20 that right?
`
` 21 A. Yes.
`
` 22 Q. And they ultimately produced from that zone,
`
` 23 did they not?
`
` 24 A. Well, it's not -- it's not completely clear,
`
` 25 but there's a graph here on figure 8. I'm trying to
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 6 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:26)
`
` 1 make sure that's referring to this particular case.
`
` 2 It shows the toe only making gas.
`
` 3 Q. In addition to that, if we go back to page 4,
`
` 4 the second column, the second sentence under case
`
` 5 history number two, it talks about the fingers present
`
` 6 with recoverable reserves. Do you see that?
`
` 7 A. It does say there's recoverable reserves.
`
` 8 Q. And the reference to fingers I took to mean
`
` 9 what appear to be three fingerlike sections of the
`
` 10 reservoir shown in figure 7, the topmost of which is
`
` 11 intersected by the toe.
`
` 12 A. Yes. So it says that the reserves were
`
` 13 recoverable, but I don't read there that it says that
`
` 14 they were recovered.
`
` 15 Q. Would it have made sense to acidize --
`
` 16 MR. DUPHORNE: Hey, Mark, are you there?
`
` 17 MR. GARRETT: We are.
`
` 18 MR. NEMUNAITIS: Oh, that was the hang-up
`
` 19 button.
`
` 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record? Go
`
` 21 off the record, fellows? Everybody?
`
` 22 MR. GARRETT: Please, yes.
`
` 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at
`
` 24 8:50 a.m.
`
` 25 (Recess taken.)
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 7 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:27)
`
` 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record at
`
` 2 8:53.
`
` 3 Q. (BY MR. GARRETT) Mr. McGowen, I'm not sure
`
` 4 where we left off, so I'm going to strike whatever I
`
` 5 started to say --
`
` 6 A. Okay.
`
` 7 Q. -- and start over --
`
` 8 A. Okay.
`
` 9 Q. -- with a new question. That question is,
`
` 10 they acidized the toe of this particular well, correct?
`
` 11 A. Well, let's see. Are you referring to page 6
`
` 12 where they say "results"? "The initial acid job using
`
` 13 SBPs indicated the tools successfully provided
`
` 14 isolation during the job"? Is that the sentence you're
`
` 15 referring to or --
`
` 16 Q. That is one place where it is mentioned. It
`
` 17 is also mentioned on page 5, the second column under
`
` 18 "Installation and Operations" where it says, "Prior to
`
` 19 running the production assembly SBPs were run to
`
` 20 acidize the toe of the well."
`
` 21 A. Okay. So it says that they were run to
`
` 22 acidize the toe, but they didn't say that they acidized
`
` 23 the toe.
`
` 24 Q. To go back and address the first point we were
`
` 25 discussing, on page 6, the second column, there's a
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 8 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:28)
`
` 1 sentence in the second paragraph that says, "The
`
` 2 production has been alternated between producing the
`
` 3 toe only and adding the heel." Do you see that?
`
` 4 A. Let's see. I'm sorry, where is that?
`
` 5 That's --
`
` 6 Q. That is page 6, the second column and the
`
` 7 second paragraph at the second sentence of that
`
` 8 paragraph.
`
` 9 A. Okay. Yes, I see that.
`
` 10 Q. Does that shed light on whether they produced
`
` 11 from the toe of the figure 7 well?
`
` 12 A. That does sound like they produced something
`
` 13 from the toe.
`
` 14 Q. The purpose of acidizing is to acidize, right?
`
` 15 A. I don't think I would put it that way.
`
` 16 Q. How would you put it?
`
` 17 A. Well, the purpose of acidizing is to improve
`
` 18 the permeability near the wellbore in the matrix.
`
` 19 Q. And that could be achieved by acid fracturing,
`
` 20 right?
`
` 21 A. Acid fracturing is a different methodology.
`
` 22 You're actually trying to initiate a crack and move
`
` 23 acid away from the wellbore, whereas this appears to be
`
` 24 a matrix acidizing job.
`
` 25 Q. Did the term acidizing necessarily exclude
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 9 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
` 1 acid fracturing?
`
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
` 2 A. They're two different things. Acidizing and
`
` 3 acid fracturing are two separate and different things.
`
` 4 Q. So in your view when the authors used the term
`
` 5 acidizing, they were excluding acid fracturing?
`
` 6 A. Acidizing is below fracture pressure. So
`
` 7 whatever the fracture gradient for that particular
`
` 8 formation is, you try to pump below that and you're
`
` 9 pushing acid into the matrix of the formation to try to
`
` 10 dissolve carbonate material in pore spaces to remove
`
` 11 damage near the wellbore.
`
` 12 Q. Are you more likely to stimulate production if
`
` 13 you acid fracture than if you matrix acidize?
`
` 14 A. That would depend on the formation.
`
` 15 Q. Do you know the answer by reading Ellsworth?
`
` 16 A. I would have to examine the permeability of
`
` 17 this formation, and you would need to do some sort of a
`
` 18 simulation work to determine if you thought an acid
`
` 19 frac was necessary.
`
` 20 Q. Can you think of a carbonate formation that
`
` 21 would have been less likely to be more productive from
`
` 22 acid -- or matrix acidizing than acid fracturing?
`
` 23 A. I'm not sure I quite understand the question.
`
` 24 Q. Well, the goal of acidizing is to stimulate
`
` 25 production, right?
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 10 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
` 1 A. Well, that's a generic term, stimulate. But
`
` 2 you've got far field damage in a reservoir potentially,
`
` 3 you've got near field damage, you've got skin damage is
`
` 4 what you would call it near the wellbore. If you're in
`
` 5 a very low permeability reservoir, then you do some
`
` 6 sort of fracturing to create a conduit, a high
`
` 7 permeability conduit to the wellbore from the far
`
` 8 field.
`
` 9 With matrix acidizing, you're just trying
`
` 10 to remove skin damage oftentimes that's caused by
`
` 11 drilling mud invasion near the wellbore. So in a high
`
` 12 permeability reservoir, which I suspect this -- this
`
` 13 probably is; I haven't examined the permeability
`
` 14 figures for this, but this is probably a high
`
` 15 permeability reservoir and you're just trying to remove
`
` 16 skin damage near the wellbore with an acid job.
`
` 17 Q. At that point in the production of the well,
`
` 18 you know -- an operator would know the fracture
`
` 19 pressure of the well, would they not?
`
` 20 A. You could estimate it, but in order to know
`
` 21 what the fracture gradient is, to be able to actually
`
` 22 measure it, you need to actually create a fracture in
`
` 23 the rock.
`
` 24 Q. And would the driller have done that with a
`
` 25 casing shoe leak off test?
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 11 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
` 1 A. He might have. I don't know that that was
`
` 2 done on this well. The casing shoe appears to me to be
`
` 3 here before you actually enter the reservoir in this
`
` 4 drawing. So that wouldn't really tell you very much
`
` 5 about the fracture gradient at the toe, for example.
`
` 6 Q. Would there be a lot of variability between
`
` 7 the fracture gradient from the toe to the first place
`
` 8 that they were able to fracture with the leak off test?
`
` 9 A. Possibly there could be. It depends on what
`
` 10 type of rock you set your casing shoe in. Oftentimes
`
` 11 you'll look for a competent shale to set a casing shoe,
`
` 12 because it has a high frac gradient. Or you're looking
`
` 13 for a point where you just entered the reservoir maybe
`
` 14 past that shale, and so there could be variability
`
` 15 along the wellbore. There's not -- I don't have enough
`
` 16 information here to really opine on that.
`
` 17 Q. Would you expect a fracture gradient for shale
`
` 18 to be encountered in this formation, the figure 7
`
` 19 formation?
`
` 20 A. I don't know if there is any data in this
`
` 21 paper that -- that tells me what the different laminae
`
` 22 in the reservoir are.
`
` 23 Q. Would shale have a higher or lower fracture
`
` 24 gradient than a carbonate formation like the one that's
`
` 25 in figure 7?
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 12 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
` 1 A. Typically shales have a high fracture
`
` 2 gradient.
`
` 3 Q. Would you want -- if you were going to run
`
` 4 packers to withstand matrix acidizing, would it be good
`
` 5 engineering practice to engineer them to handle
`
` 6 fracture pressure?
`
` 7 A. I can't really say why you would need to do
`
` 8 that. If you know what your pressure differentials are
`
` 9 going to be in what is probably a fairly depleted
`
` 10 reservoir, there really wouldn't be any need to plan
`
` 11 for extremely high pressures.
`
` 12 Q. How much higher of a pressure do you think the
`
` 13 fracture gradient -- or, sorry, the fracture pressure
`
` 14 would be than the reservoir pressure in a formation
`
` 15 like this one in figure 7?
`
` 16 A. Well, as I understood it, this is -- I'm
`
` 17 trying to review this real quickly here.
`
` 18 Q. Take as much time as you need.
`
` 19 A. So this -- this formation -- it says on page
`
` 20 1, "The formation tends to be a prolific producer due
`
` 21 to the high matrix permeability and porosity."
`
` 22 MR. GARRETT: Could we go off the record
`
` 23 for just a second?
`
` 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at
`
` 25 9:03 a.m.
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 13 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`
` 1 (Recess taken.)
`
` 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record at
`
` 3 9:05.
`
` 4 Q. (BY MR. GARRETT) Mr. McGowen, the question
`
` 5 that I had asked was how much higher of a pressure do
`
` 6 you think the fracture pressure would be than the
`
` 7 reservoir pressure in the formation like the one in
`
` 8 figure 7?
`
` 9 A. Well, if you look at page 2, the first
`
` 10 paragraph on the first column it says, "The field was
`
` 11 initially produced through a primary production mainly
`
` 12 using gas lift. Both gas reinjection and water
`
` 13 injection had been used as recovery mechanisms and to
`
` 14 provide pressure maintenance for the field. Part of
`
` 15 the Rainbow Lake Field is now under tertiary recovery
`
` 16 utilizing a solvent flooding procedure."
`
` 17 So that means that they've pulled the
`
` 18 initial reservoir pressure down appreciably. So part
`
` 19 of the equation for fracture gradient includes a term
`
` 20 for a pore pressure or reservoir pressure. So it looks
`
` 21 to me like this is a highly depleted field and we're
`
` 22 past secondary recovery and we're into tertiary
`
` 23 recovery. So you're dealing with extremely low
`
` 24 pressures in this reservoir and I would expect the
`
` 25 fracture gradient to be extremely low.
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 14 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`
` 1 Q. So is there a percentage that you would feel
`
` 2 comfortable putting on how much higher the fracture
`
` 3 pressure than the reservoir pressure would be for the
`
` 4 figure 7 well?
`
` 5 A. Well, you really need to have more data to
`
` 6 calculate that. There is an equation for that, but you
`
` 7 need -- you need inputs to the equation.
`
` 8 Q. Matrix acidizing would tend to lower the
`
` 9 fracture pressure, would it not?
`
` 10 A. If you were dealing with a perforated
`
` 11 completion, you might see a reduction in the initial
`
` 12 pressure required to initiate a fracture. The tensile
`
` 13 strength of the rock itself is one of the major factors
`
` 14 in determining a fracture gradient. So pore pressure,
`
` 15 tinsel strength to the rock, those are some of the main
`
` 16 controlling parameters. So I wouldn't expect that the
`
` 17 acid job would have any significant effect on the
`
` 18 fracture gradient.
`
` 19 Q. Could have some effect, though.
`
` 20 A. I would have to do some more research on that.
`
` 21 I've never heard of that really being an issue with
`
` 22 acidizing -- matrix acidizing in an open hole.
`
` 23 Q. So you haven't taken the position that matrix
`
` 24 acidizing in an open hole tends to lower the fracture
`
` 25 pressure of that hole?
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 15 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`
` 1 A. No, I'm not -- I don't have a position on that
`
` 2 right now.
`
` 3 Q. Would a person of ordinary skill in the art --
`
` 4 and let's call that individual a POSITA, P-O-S-I-T-A.
`
` 5 A. All right.
`
` 6 Q. So that I'm not repeating those five or six
`
` 7 words over and over again. Would -- would a POSITA be
`
` 8 over-engineering the solid body packers in the figure 7
`
` 9 completion assembly by making sure that they were
`
` 10 capable of withstanding fracture pressure when they ran
`
` 11 it in to acidize the toe of the well?
`
` 12 A. Could you define over-engineering, please?
`
` 13 Q. What does that term mean to you?
`
` 14 A. Well, I think it's sort of a pejorative term.
`
` 15 It's not a technical term. I think it's vague and
`
` 16 probably impossible to define.
`
` 17 Q. What would be the downside to engineering the
`
` 18 solid body packers that you were going to run with the
`
` 19 assembly that acidized the toe of the figure 7 well to
`
` 20 withstand fracture pressure?
`
` 21 A. It could be that they're more expensive than
`
` 22 they need to be and more complicated than they need to
`
` 23 be.
`
` 24 Q. So expense would be a driver in how the person
`
` 25 engineered the packers?
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 16 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`
` 1 A. Well, I mean, I don't know why you wouldn't
`
` 2 just run inflatable packers for the -- for a matrix
`
` 3 acid job. Which seems to me might be easier to actuate
`
` 4 something that's been used in the past.
`
` 5 Q. Do you think they made a mistake by running
`
` 6 the solid body packers instead of inflatable packers?
`
` 7 A. I'd have to really see the economics of this
`
` 8 whole project to make a determination if it was a
`
` 9 prudent engineering practice or not.
`
` 10 Q. But you wouldn't want -- sorry, you wouldn't
`
` 11 want to waste money when you didn't have to?
`
` 12 A. I don't know whether they wasted money or not.
`
` 13 Q. You wouldn't want to spend money that you
`
` 14 didn't have to spend.
`
` 15 A. Well, didn't have to spend, meaning that
`
` 16 you're going to get exactly the same result no matter
`
` 17 which way you go with a design? Is that what you're
`
` 18 asking?
`
` 19 Q. That would be one way to look at it, but I
`
` 20 don't think it would be the only way to look at it.
`
` 21 A. Well, I mean, the objective of the completion
`
` 22 engineer is to maximize profit and to get an acceptable
`
` 23 internal rate of return and net present value for the
`
` 24 overall project. So if -- I don't know all the
`
` 25 economics of this project, so all I know is that, you
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 17 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
` 1 know, what they say in this paper right here.
`
` 2 So it may or may not have been
`
` 3 appropriate or prudent engineering practice. In this
`
` 4 application I'd have to see both of the alternatives
`
` 5 and look at the incremental economic analysis of the
`
` 6 two to make -- to opine on whether this was
`
` 7 over-engineered, so to speak.
`
` 8 Q. But, I mean, economics drives decisions about
`
` 9 how to do completions, right?
`
` 10 A. Yes.
`
` 11 Q. And it drove them back at the time of the
`
` 12 invention, right?
`
` 13 A. Yes.
`
` 14 Q. People of ordinary skill in the art were
`
` 15 incentivized to try to complete wells in a way that was
`
` 16 as economical as possible, right?
`
` 17 A. Well, economics is -- in oil and gas
`
` 18 production and completion operations is going to be
`
` 19 defined by the lifting cost or the finding cost and
`
` 20 that's a dollars per barrel or dollars per MCF.
`
` 21 So if you ignore the time value of money
`
` 22 and just look at dollars in and dollars out -- so you
`
` 23 have a numerator and a denominator, so you can either
`
` 24 increase production or reduce cost or you can do both.
`
` 25 So just spending money to -- just
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 18 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
` 1 designing your operations to reduce costs may, in fact,
`
` 2 reduce the economic benefit of that project.
`
` 3 Q. Would it have violated prudent engineering
`
` 4 practice to run solid body packers into the toe of the
`
` 5 figure 7 well that were engineered to withstand
`
` 6 fraccing pressure?
`
` 7 A. No.
`
` 8 Q. Okay, Mr. McGowen, I'm handing you the '505,
`
` 9 '634 and '774 Patents.
`
` 10 A. Okay.
`
` 11 Q. Take a moment to look at those. Some of the
`
` 12 claims in the '505 and the '634 Patents are method
`
` 13 claims, right?
`
` 14 A. Can you point me to the claims that you're
`
` 15 talking about, please?
`
` 16 Q. Claims 19 to 27 of the '505 Patent.
`
` 17 A. Can you help me out with a page number maybe?
`
` 18 Q. Yeah, go to the next to last page in the
`
` 19 '505 Patent and claim 19 starts near the bottom of
`
` 20 column 15.
`
` 21 A. Okay.
`
` 22 Q. So you see that claim 19 is an independent
`
` 23 claim?
`
` 24 A. Let's see. That's -- is that -- is that
`
` 25 column 16?
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 19 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`
` 1 Q. 19 starts in column 15.
`
` 2 A. It just says 19 over here, right?
`
` 3 Q. Yes, that's right. That's where claim 19
`
` 4 starts.
`
` 5 A. All right. Thank you.
`
` 6 Q. Sure.
`
` 7 A. Sorry, this -- my old eyes and this lighting
`
` 8 are combining to make this hard for me to read.
`
` 9 Q. I'm sorry.
`
` 10 (Pause.)
`
` 11 Q. (BY MR. GARRETT) And I'll tell you what I
`
` 12 would like to know --
`
` 13 A. Okay.
`
` 14 Q. -- about the method claims in the '505 Patent.
`
` 15 Do any of them require the inducement of a fracture in
`
` 16 a formation?
`
` 17 A. I don't see the -- well, I'm sorry, I need to
`
` 18 read the rest of it here. No, I don't -- I don't see a
`
` 19 mention of the word fracturing in there.
`
` 20 Q. Look at the language at the end of 19 that
`
` 21 says, "Conveying the means for moving the second sleeve
`
` 22 to move the second sleeve and increasing fluid pressure
`
` 23 to force wellbore treatment fluid out through the
`
` 24 second port." Do you see that language?
`
` 25 A. Yes.
`
`DepoTexas, Inc.
`
`Page 20 of 199
`Exhibit 1034
`IPR2016-01509
`
`gggggggggggg
`
`IPR2016-01517
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:70)(cid:42)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:44)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`
` 1 Q. Does that language require the inducement of a
`
` 2 fracture?
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
