Transcript of Record — Dow Co. v. Halliburton Co.

Supreme Court brief1945

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Vol. I

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

(Pages 1 to 500)

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1944

No. 50

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, PETITIONER,

vs.

HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING COMPANY

No. 61

HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING COMPANY,

PETITIONER,

vs.

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CUURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

(APRIL ©, 1944.

PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI FILED /APRIL iv. 1944.

CERTIORARI GRANTED MAY 15, 19414.

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1944

No. 50

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, a Corporation,

Petitioner,

VS.

HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING COMPANY,

a Corporation,

Respondent.

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Volume I—Pages 1 to 500

WILser OweEN,

1601 Nicholas Building, Tolede, Obio,

Catvin A. CAMPPELL,

The Dow Chemical Company,

Midland, Michigan,

RusseLt WILEs,

Board of Trade Bldg., Chicago, Illinois,

Donatp L. Conner,

The Dow Chemical Company,

Midland, Michigan,

Attorneys for Petitioner.

Kart Bapscock,

Duyean, Oklahoma,

Leowfhp S. Lyon,

S11 West 7th Street,

Los Angeles, California,

Attorneys for Respondent,

IN THE

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIROUIT

Tue Dow CHemicat Company, a CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-A ppellant,

vs.

Hauursurton Om Wei Cementine Company,

a CoRPORATION, Defendant-A ppellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division

Cavin A. CAMPBELL,

The Dow Chemical Company,

Midland, Michigan,

Attorney for Plaintiff.

Wiser Owen,

1601 Nicholas Building, Toledo, Ohio,

Russet, Wigs,

Board of Trade Bldg.; Chicago, Illinois,

Dowatp L. Conner,

The Dow Chemical Company,

Midland, Michigan,

Of Counsel for Plawmtiff.

Eart Bascock,

Duncan, Oklahoma,

Attorney for Defendant. ~

Laonagp S. Lrox,

811 West 7th Sireet,

Los les, California,

Of Cownsel for Defendant.

INDEX TO VOLUMES I, Il AND III

; Pages

CI, 5 ok cco ccaveneetesccecctvacerdsccrecteeotuses 2,3

Bepended Anawer of DelemGant.« ow. cccccccccvcecsocvcesess 4-12

aa ara dW We euinn @aib dace «wee enw 13

Stipulation re Previous Litigation..................... toaee apa

Ce es ca ceeckscanevatcecsunsenedes 1403, 1408, 1425, 1434

Proceedings on Settlement of Findings of Fact............. 1435-1477

NS Cas oo oe suka hac Sus eccdaeoawesuvenceksuaran 1478-1491

CE EM ca cacehessesu ee cas webs 0 ox oteen ee bate 1492

CN oe es waaeeke we wes Caan eand keee sna ceeeee wee 1492-1493

es nc Cavece near spe doncecd veces seeds Renee 1494

Ce I ace Nas aeatadetawes san eee 1494-1495

Stipulation Eutemding Time. .... «2005 .y% cuscccccseccveesss 1496

Statement of Points on Which Appellant Will Rely......... 1497-1500

Stipulation Approving Printed Record on Appeal........... 2048

Pra Facte WITNESSES

Direct Cross Redirect Recross

300

PROCEEDINGS IN UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT

OF APPEALS—SIXTH CIRCUIT 159

PAGB

Entry—Cause Argued and Submitted.............. 2051

NS co nexewendaeh dais vote cones ecucanoren tases 2051

ME SUGLOLA GS, che bunk de eovucsenewenatetiecee. 2052

PS Se A cr cecSvasseanesevees sees 2061

Order Denying Petition for Rehearing.............. 2077

Maerk’s Cortifieata N77

; patie 2, 134

Orders allowing certiorari 2OTS

Miller, H. C. (Stipulation).... 935-239 TAR

icwotas, Carl A... .. ceccccels 263 283 283

Penhaligen, Chas. ............ 160 163

i. SB ee eee 501 614 794, 837 833, 843

Putnam, Sherman W......... » 143 150

Rebbeck, James W............ 43 6

Shelley, Paul G............... 286 295 300 300

Steelman, Joseph F............ 301 304

Verser, Joe Kinnard.......... 258

Derense WITNESSES

Direct Cross

I gr ee RS ce 8 AT 1061 1063

Colley, Robert H.............. 1053

A ee ane ae 896 947

I eat uit esc aee 1040 1048

| ae mises 853 869

i tery =a cae 1076

Knappen, Russell S............ 1077 1082

(Stipulation )

Knappen, Russell S............ 1090 1099

McKain, Bessie G............. 1054 1055

Neubauer, John J............. 1057 1059

Nichols, Howard M.......;:.... 1030 1034

Pes OND Wisk sce ccavwewcae 1902 1006

Spruance, Frank Palin........ 989 997

Thomas, William A............ 1010 1028

Wescott, Blaine B............. 1110 1122

WM I EA ob vcd a ce cas cae 1065 8069

ResuttaL WITNESSES

Direct Cross

Alquist, Francis N............ 1359

Blum, Edward D. (Stipulation).1161

Crampton, Fred .............. 1290 1291

Dougherty, Chas. I............ 1195 1213

Riga SO ee te 1166 1182

eee re 1300 1307

Luman, Edw. D. (Stipulation) .1156

Poffenberger, Ira N........... 1409 1413

i. at |. 2 JER een eee 1130 1151

Rebbeck, James W........... 1320 1338

Sprenger, Walter ............ 1256 1273

Staggs, Horace M............. 1158

(Stipulation)

wee, See ee ee 1298 1299

Weygandt, Arthur S.......... 1201

Wolmer, Clifford FE............ 1295 1297

Redirect

1051

1089, 1090

1109

1039

1007

1001

1074

Redirect

1250

1194

1314

1418

1357

1289

Recross

1052

1090

1109

1001

1074

Reeross

1254

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Puarntirr’s ExHIsits

z Exhibit Pages

; Number Identified Printed

, 1 Grebe-Sanford patent in suit 1 877 04 15 1501

2 Grebe patent 1,916,122.............. 15 1504

3 Grebe- gy toesser ‘patent 1,998,756...... 15 1509

4 Chamberlain patent 2,024, | eRe 15 1512

7 Bureau of Mines Bulletin 148........ 29 Vol. I, 29

9 Chart of patent ap he sled involving

use of acid in wells, filed from 1866

2 BESS A eee 63 1515

9% Revision of Exhibit 9............... 80 1516

10 Chart entitled ‘‘Streams of Knowl-

See EES Re eee 65 1517

10% Prior Art Patents and Publications. . 1518-88

Sherwood 3 65 1518

Roberts 59,936 kes sin as 46 1521

Dickey See 47 1525

Roberts | eer ee 49 1528

Looney eee 66 1530

Aiken are 86 1531

Ball See 70 1533

Mitchell Se 50 1537

Dunn Es os Nos vcuecs 50 1541

Muehl DIETS 9 6acdu'c Chua 71 1546

Lake et al. =: 11,498,045. ........... 73 1549

Tilton 1,608,869. ........... 74 1552

Atkinson 1, NT coca oe 53 1558

Ranney et al. 1,806,499 Po. Ue 75 1565

. Bowman IDS sas vba se0s 77 1570

33 Young EE cna «0% ees 55 1575

British Patent 158,768. ........... 94 1578

Millon article (1845).............. 83 1581

Conroy article (1901)............. 87 1584

Watts article (1912).............. 89 1587

Corbett article (1918)............. 98 1588

4 12 Summary of Dow Shipments of acid :

3 with inhibitors February 11 to Novem-

4 Oe we EE eee aia k nebessacsse's 118 1591-96

. = 13 Letters, dated June 13, 1932, to Jan-

4 uary 19, 1933, from oil industry inquir-

% ing about new Dow process of acid

x treatments for oil wells.............. 148 1597-1625

4 14. ~=Item in Midland paper regarding new

hs Dow well treating process, dated June

J Dy asst cacs vet lecvstesnevess: 148 1626

PLAINTIFF’s Exutsits

Exhibit Pages

Number Identified Printed

19 First invoice of defendant for acidiz-

ing well, dated March 11, 1935........ 248 1627

20. Second invoice of defendant for acidiz-

~ ing well, dated May 25, 1935......... 248 1628

21 Third invoice of defendant fer acidiz-

ing Well, dated May 25, 1935......... 248 1628

23 Purchase order from Erle P. Hallibur-

ton, Ine;-dated 5/21/34, for acid treat-

ment of well by Dowell, Ine........... 250 1629

26 Ditto, dated October 24, 1934........ 250 1630

27 Bulk material sales receipt for 1,000

gal. Dowell X acid delivered by Dowell

Inc., to Erle P. Halliburton, Inc., dated

November 9, 1934................... 250 1631

31 Agreement dated March 15, 1934, for

acidizing two wells by Dowell, Inc.,

. for Steen Drilling, Ine............... 251 1632

34 Agreement dated April 20, 1934, for

acidizing ten wells by Dowell, Inc., for

Steen Drilling, Ine., or Erle P. Halli-

fog a pa Mo RE EP CARP eg ey 251 1635

38 Order from Steen Drilling, Ine., dated °

‘ 3/15/34, for acid treatment by Dowell,

EE eT ee a 25 1639

40 eutte, Gated G/37/94......... oce.. 254 1639

43 Ditto, dated 4/20/34................ 254 1640

46 Purchase order from Erle P. Hallibur-

ton, Ine., dated 5/9/34, for 2.000 gal.

acid job by Dowell, Ine............... 254 1640

o2 Receipt, dated 7/10/34, for well treat-

ment performed by Dowell, Inc., for

Erle P. Halliburton, Inc............. 25 1641

54 Ditto,, dated 7/24/34................ 254 1642

57 Ditto, dated 8/15/34................ 25 1643

59 Ditto, dated 9/16/34................ 254 1644

60 Purchase order from Steen Drilling,

Ine., dated 9/16/34, ‘for 1,500 gal. acid

job by Dowell, Inc...°........... 1... 254 3 41645

62 Receipt, dated 10 /24 /34, for well treat-

ment performed by Dowell, Ine., for

irle P. Halliburton, Ine............. 254 1646

64 Ditto, dated 11/14/34............... 254 1647

66 Ditto, dated 12/19/34............... 25 1648

67 Stipulation re testimony of R. FE.

cechaie a, «4, aT Oe CIOL Oe EES 213 Vol. I, 213

68 Stipulation re testimony of H. C. Mil

a Aa Ree ie MI NT id iy 235 Vol. T, 235

All exhibits are printed in Volume TV unless otherwise indicated.

“~

a ee wrk ia Se i dere

Exhibit

Number

159

vil

PLAINTIFF’s EXHIBITs

Pages

Identified Printed

Sketches of defendant’s truck tank... 262

Article in Oil City Derrick of October

10, 1895, entitled ‘‘A Great Discov-

ery,”’ reporting acid treatment of well

by Frasch and Van Dyke.........--. 1194A

Table of Dowell, Inc., statistics show-

ing growth from November 16, 1932,

to 1940, inelusive. (See also Plain-

tiff's Bixhibit 262.) .....-cccesceseess 161

Well completion data Greendale

(Michigan) oil field............-+--- 168

Carnegie Library Card cataloging

available issues of Oil City Derrick... 11944

Item in Oil City Derrick for October

98, 1895, reporting acid treatment of

wells by Frasch and Van Dyke....... 1194A

Ditto, for November 9, 1895......... 11944

Ditto, for January 15, 1896.......... 194A

Ditto, for February 20, 1896.......-. 1194A

Ditto, for February 22, 1896......... 194A

Ditto, for March 26, 1896............ 194A

Ditto, for August 10, 1897........... 1194A

Stipulation re Williams Bros. record... 15

Gypsy Oil Company correspondence

and reports re removal of ‘*Gyp’’ scale

and prevention of formation of ‘*Gyp”’

in oil wells of the Glenpool, Okla.,

SN fe acceacreVaaweedda cans bie ene. 1087

Bartell Table showing results of cor-

rosion tests with defendant's truck

(treating) acids on strap iron test

DIOGO oe ccuccdexsarsseaseen ce seedweny 329

Ditto, showing results on test pieces

of oil well pipe from National Supply

Ditto, showing results on test pieces “

of oil well pipe from Oil Well Supply

Re ee ae een ani y cad.

Ditto, showin® results on test pieces

of oil well pipe from Atha Supply Co.. 334

Bartell Table showing results of cor-

rosion tests with defendant’s storage

acids on strap iron test pieces........ 545

Ditto, showing results on test pieces

of oil well pipe from National Supply

Oe seri wasnvcecexceehis coir Corre 345

1649

1651-54

1655

Vol. 1, 168

1656

1657

1658

1659

1661

1663

Vol. 1,18

1664-1704

1710

All exhibits are printed in Volume TV unless otherwise indicated.

Vili

PLAINTIFF’s EXHIBITS

Exhibit Pages

Number Identified Printed -

160 Bartell Table showing analyses of de-

fendant’s truck (treating) acid sam-

SOG ied cue dond cote eeeb es wee aaeens 376 1711

161 Bartell Table showing analyses of acid

samples taken from defendant’s stor-

ON SHRINE: oc vvkne cs cate enrn teak aces 378 1712

162 Bartell Table showing analyses of acid

aamples taken from defendant’s stor-

age tanks and diluted to strength of

defendant’s truck (treating) acid sam-

ee eerie sictie = (ete Aca Waar 379 1712

163 Bartell Table showing content of cop- ¢

per, lead and iron in acid used by de-

fendant in treating Zahn well, and

same as to acid from defendant’s stor-

SG ROME 5 os Sia he oe ee ek 380 1713

Bartell Table showing content of cop-

r, lead and iron in acid used by de-

idant in treating Stella Wilcox

, and same as to acid from defend-

PUGntty GUNES nino d60 coe ctess ss 383 1714

165 Barthll Table showing content of cop-

164

idee eta tise nue kek ahs es 384 1715

166 | Bartéll Table showing results of cor-

\ rosion tests using ¢. p. (chemically

pure) hydrochloric acid solution con-

taining different amounts of copper,

NE WN is nb ns ca veccccurns B.. 394 1716

167 Bartel! Table showing effect of agita-

tion and inereased quantity of acid op

corrosiveness of acid solutions con-

taining different amounts of copper,

NO BN ISS clic cence kav cheeses 6: 407 1719

169 Bartell Table showing amounts of cop-

per, lead and iron in defendant’s truck

(treating) tank acids and storage tank

Re Sr a8 Bree mae Wyaar ey my ie 424 1720

170 Bartell’s chart showing effect of add-

ing copper, lead and iron to 15.1% e. p.

WYGTOOMMOTEC BCI 2... occ ceeccec cess 428 1721

Pe eo et ey

All exhibits are printed in Volume IV unless otherwise indicated.

PLaInTIFF’s EXHIBITS

Exhibit Pages

Number Identified Printed

171 Bartell Table showing percentage re-

duction in corrosiveness of hydro-

chloric acid resulting from addition of

different inhibitors named in Grebe-

Banter MORE ode ck ccc i cesssciess 451 1723

172 Data showing dates when samples of

defendant’s treating and storage acids

Le were taken by plaintiff and dates of

; receipt of acid by defendant......... 494 1724

173A Prutton Table showing results of

small scale tests of corrosiveness of

hydrochloric acid containing different

amounts of iron, lead and copper..... 516 1726

173B Table comparing results of some of

tests shown in Exhibit 173A......... 516 1727

yp 8 RR ie ae CR ra A SAE aioe on Aya ee 516 1727

173D Ditto, and description of tests, mate-

rials and equipment used and explana-

IN i ko ns he dco 3 oe ce wses te 516 1728-33

176 Prutton Table showing amount of iron

dissolved from Series 1 oil well tub-

ing in large scale Run 1A using 15%

ee Bein

kk ee ae a 508 1734

177 BO MD BRIN cock vxscccosues ces 515 1735

178 Ditto re Run 2A using Series 2 tubing 515 1736

179 Ditto re Run 2C using Series 2 tubing 515 1737

180 Ditto re Run 1B using Series 1 tubing

and 15% commercial HCl] containing

small amounts of copper, lead and iron

Ss 5 va eek ease tne vcs cateess 517 1738

181 Ditto re Run 2B. Similar to Run 1B,

but with Series 2 tubing............. 517 1739

182. Ditto re Run 2D. Similar to Run 2B,

but with different amounts of copper,

NY WE I og va cscs sehen sccccs 517 1740

183 Ditto re Run 2E. Similar to Run 2B,

but with different amounts of copper,

EE I oo y cue aa eats 517 1741

184 Prutton’s summary and conclusions

with respect to runs in Exhibits 176-

eet ee rae foal hie css oan Casa os 534 1742-45

185 Prutton Tables showing results of

Runs 1M, 1N, 2M and 2N, using com-

mercial acid from specia! tank embody-

ing features of defendant’s truck tanks 537 1746-49

Sketch showing equipment used in

Runs 1M, 1N, 2M and 2N............ 537 1751

All exhibits are printed in Volume TV unless otherwise indicated.

Exhibit

Number

186

187

188

189

205

216

218A-218D

219, 220

998

231A-231J

232

233

PuaIntTiFF’s ExHIBITs

Pages

Identified Printed

Defendant’s booklet re Howco method 587

Prutton graph showing results of runs

of Exhibits 176-183................. 602

Prutton graph comparing results of

Runs 1M, 1N, 2M and 2N (Exhibit

185) with average of Runs 1A, 144A,

2A and 2C (Exhibits 176-179)........ 604

Prutton graph showing results of tests

of 15% ¢. p. hydrochloric acid with

different added amounts of copper,

SE I ice sh oeas Cast ee teens 605

History of oil development in lime-

stone fields prior to 1932 and history

of acidizing in those fields beginning

in 19232, prepared by the witness Fitz-

OO alr sre tka scat ss Gas Sk ales. ose 178

Item from Montana Oil & Mining

Journal for January 26, 1935, report-

ing increase of production in Pondera

(Montana) field, due to acidizing..... 186

Bulletin of Montana Oil Conservation

RPE BAA Ce ea en Oe 189

Letter, Dow Co. to Oil Makers, 9-25-32.1171

Letter, Grasselli to Oil Makers, 10-14-

RA RS Sara bare ek elegy De Ae 1174

Letter, Grasselli to Oil Makers, 11-1-

Be eon eeuede eke Ceasdew ea heties 1175

Letter, Grasselli to Oil Makers, 1-26-

Be ocd ae see cc aan ware ek 1176

Letter, Grasselli to Oil Makers, 9-15-

Be ee eee sae ale hol Pee coe ak 1179

Letter, Oil Makers to Grasselli, 10-8-

chao ek bares oie cas So eu eet 1179

Oil Makers checks to Penn. Salt Co.. .1196

Letter, Lee to Oil Makers, 2-7-3383... ..1243

Pages from notebook kept by the wit-

NE IN so ens occ caeen ys 1257

Photograph of standing valve and

WE FI ho ode ch eae cece aekx 1268

Letter, Prutton to Rebbeck, 1-28-41... 799

Dow Company’s records of shipments

of acid to Pure Oil Company during

period from February to May, inclu-

ae SRE TNR penn ey Sa Sk ee 149

Table supplementing Exhibit 94...... 845

Summary of well treatments made by

licensees of Dow other than Dowell... 845

Vol. II, 587

1752

1753

1755-70

1770

Vol. I, 187

Vol. ITT, 1172

Vol. ITT, 1174

Vol. ITT, 1175

Vol. ITT, 1178

Vol. ITT, 1179

Vol. ITT, 1180

Vol. ITT, 1196

Vol. ITT, 1242

1772-74

1775

1776

1777-86

1787

1788

All exhibits are printed in Volume TV unless otherwise indicated.

vat * ©

seacetet aa Lac Fao

a eee, Dee

Puarntirr’s ExHIsBITs

Exhibit Pages

Number Identified Printed

234 Sketch and data prepared by Dr.

Prutton showing rates of attack on oil

well tubing of 15% c. p. hydrochloric

acid and of 15% synthetic defendant’s

| RS er ee 840 1789

242 Dowell advertisement in Petroleum

World, September, 1938............. 846 1790

243 Ditto for January, 1939............. 847 1791

245 Dowell, Inc., Service Price Schedule

ee ee OO os swe bape se 852 1792

246 Record of shipments of hydrochloric

acid and arsenic inhibitor by Dow

Company for period January to June,

eR Oe el a ee 121 1793

305 Affidavit of Robert Quinlan on the

first treatment of a Pure Oil Company

well with inhibited hydrochloric acid. .1028 1794

328 Table showing results of acid treat-

ments of gas wells by Dowell, Inc.,

prepared by the witness Lyons....... 191 1796

329 Ditto, showing additional treatments

ii rabesceuvny aces 193 1797

330 Table showing time acid was in tubing

in each of 122 acid treatments made by

Dowell in Kansas from March to Sep-

tember, 1936, in 97 consecutive Ar-

buckle dolomite wells................ 197 1798

331 Data showing average time acid was

in tubing in making the 122 treatments

itemized in Exhibit 330.............. 197 1799

337 Chart showing combinations possible

under claims of Gravel] Patent

SE ee 1320 1800

343 Alquist Table showing rate of corro-

sion of mild steel in various concen-

trations of hydrochloric acid......... 1365 1801

Charts forming part of Exhibit 343. . .1365 1802-03

344 Alquist Table showing acceleration of

the rate of corrosion of hydrochloric

acid containing an acid regulator

caused by the addition of tin, cobalt

i ea Ia ae a a 1370 1804

Chart forming part of Exhibit 344... .1370 1805

347 Table supplementing Plaintiff's Ex-

ee ca aces can gs¥esecee ss 1404 1806

348 Table showing treatments by Dow

licensees other than Dowell.......... 1404 1807

All exhibits are printed in Volume TV unless otherwise indicated.

356

3957

308

360

362

363

364

366

xii

PuiaintiFr’s Exursirs

age

Identified Printed

Table showing summary of royalty

charged by Dow Company to licensees. 1404

Table showing quantities of inhibited

acid and other materials used by

WO Be oo esaeteo ee 1405

Graph illustrating data in Exhibit

Se chine} uectacwehnanat one ee 1407

Acidizing orders, tickets and other

data from defendant’s files relating to

wells at which plaintiff secured sam-

ples of defendant’s truck (treating)

MONE Sic kanevensssvedkuanaehedaaacus 1406

Dowell advertising data for years 1932

OD FE nance lec canaacenauese eerie 1407

Photograph of one-half gallon con-

tainer used in Alquist’s tests, and

WN. os ahama senayen ened pasemians teed 1376

~ Photographs of 10-gallon drum and of

equipment used by Alquist in making

tests, and tables and graphs showing

Wome OF OT SOME. io oko ccs eee 1380

Table, graphs and drawing of equip-

ment used by Alquist in making tests

showing loss of strength of 15% hy-

drochloric acid when in contact with

iron for different periods up to 24

i Rt OPN Mae tater REE, uct, 1398

Bartell Table showing summary of

corrosion tests of various commercial

hydrochloric acids of 15.1% strength... 499

Table showing Dowell advertising 1932

Ob Ti, BOOMING. Soci ac her ee 1408

Poffenberger’s report on acid treat-

ment of Dow Company’s brine well

WG Ae cea inseec ul eee ee 1418

Poffenberger’s report on acid treat-

ment of Dow Company’s brine well

DT ag cv csketuedtuedidedsetuen 1418

Poffenberger’s report on tests of in-

hibiting value of arsenic compounds

in hydrochloric acid................. 1423

Carr and Humphrey patent applica-

tion for method for increasing fluid

production from oil wells............ 1427

1808

1809

18105

1911-24

1825

1827-29

1830-40

1841-46

1847

1848

1842 -53

1855

1857-64

All exhibits are printed in Volume IV unless otherwise indicated.

Number

Exhibit

367

368

370

105

eee

PuaIntTirF’s ExHIBITs

Identified Printed

Carre and Humphrey patent applica-

tion on chemical reagent fer use in

of elk: co oc cance bvanseacens tes wevs 1428

Carr and Humphrey patent applica-

tion for method for igtroducing acid

reagents into’ oil wells by gas pres-

ein ce ese cededduue ae we hu aee 1428

Agreement between The Dow Chemical

Company and The Pure Oil Company

dated January 31, 1933.............. 1428

Agreement between The Dow Chemical

Company and The Pure Oil Company

dated June DD, IGGs...... ccc ccwccsss 1428

DeEFENDANT’s EXHIBITS

Excerpts from article by R. Van A.

Mills, dated December, 1923, entitled

‘‘The Paraffin Problem in Oil Wells’’. 35

Letter from M. G. Harper to J. W.

Van Dyke, dated December 5, 1895. . .1033

Telegram, Harmon to Van Dyke,

dated January 24, 1896............-. 1033

Memo from C. F. Lufkin to Van Dyke,

ee SS aR ee ee eee Prey 1033

Telegram, J. C. Donnell to Van Dyke,

dated November 25, 1895............

Telegram, Harper to Van Dyke, dated

December 6, TENG. oc. cccacsccspacess

Letter, The Grassel!i Chemical Com-

pany to Van Dyke, dated July 26, 1899

Letter, Herman (Frasch) to Van

Dyke, dated September 22, 1895......

Letter, Harper to Van Dyke, dated

ee De, Se eee 1033

Letter, Harper to Van Dyke, dated

December 16, 1606. ......,..--2-+5-; 1047

Letter, Ohio Rubber Company to Solar

Refining Co., dated September 21,

pees en er Ce rope 1047

Letter, Ohio Rubber Company to Solar

Refining Co., dated September 25,

| Re Pet eine er AR

Memo re Crossley Well No. 3 of Ohio

RR NE ne ocr cakes we cee 1047

Pages

1864-68

1868-72

1873-77

i877-82

1883

1884

1885

1886

1887

1888

1889

1890

1891

1892

1893

1894

All exhibits are printed in Volume TV unless otherwise indicated.

Exhibit

Number

xiv

Derenpant’s ExHIsIts

Pages

Identified Printed

Letter, Harper to Van Dyke, dated

OES OOO waa waccctsccceatess 1047 1895

Correspondence between Lufkin, Van

Dyke and Donnell re acid treatments

(July, 1895, and February, 1896)... .1047 1896

Letter, Lufkin to Van Dyke, dated

WO Ee ie hve tanae cues oceu aes o> 1900

Letter, Harper to Van Dyke, dated

SRE Ss 6 d's acca nundesaess 1047 1902

Letter, Grasselli Chemical Company to

Van Dyke, dated November 21, 1895. . 1903

Letter, Van Dyke to Grasselli Chemi-

cal (o., dated November Se ND.» «e's 1904

Memo dated November 2], 1895...... 1905

Letter, Frasch to Van Dyke, undated. 1905

Letter, Grasselli Chemical Co. to Van

Dyke, dated July 19, 1895............ 1906

Letter, Lufkin to Van Dyke, dated Au-

Oe EG TR gn Pe 1907

Report on scale formation in wells by

Blaine Os I Soe ag ee ies da 1081 1908-21

Report by F. W. Karl, dated February

1, 1929; re treatment of William

pea, eS Oe eee eee 1087 1922

Same as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 153...... 1087 1664-1704

ea ee 750 ~=—-: Vol. IT, 752

Letter, Robinson to Prutton, 9-12-39.. 769 Vol. II, 769

Letter, Rebbeck to Prutton, 1-24-41.. 771 Vol. II, 772

Letter, Prutton to Rebbeck, 2-19-41.. 774 Vol. IT, 775

Letter, Rebbeck to Prutton, 7-10-41.. 791 Vol. II, 791

Letter, Rebbeck to Prutton, 7-9-41... 792 Vol. II, 791

Letter, Rebbeck to Prutton, 7-9-41... 792 Vol. IT, 793

Letter, Rebbeck to Prutton, 7-11-41.. 792 Vol. II, 793

Hathorn’s chart re tests on hard steel

oe SD ad ee nye age GA 854 1924

Hathorn’s chart re tests on hard steel

i NPB EIN PCE eared TK SNS 854 1925

Hathorn’s chart re tests on hard steel

NE ss bos ne eb eee cee 854 1926

Hathorn’s chart re tests on soft steel

gE a RRS Ry RECN) 854 1927

Hathorn’s chart re tests on soft steel

ES pe! ad ok ae ne ot) 854 1928

Hathorn’s chart re tests on hard steel

tank No. A] SS Sg ge Ee AS LP AIS nt pop 854 1929

Hathorn’s chart re tests on soft steel

i ls ook ew ae ete eee 854 1930

All exhibits are printed in Volume IV unless otherwise indicated.

haat et teak

igs

pare laren ako. suai

DEFENDANT’s EXHIBITS

_ Exhibit - Pages

Number Identified Printed

287 Index for Hathorn’s corrosion experi-

ee ee iad ale an aah aie 855 1931

288 Photograph of Hathorn’s hard steel

I a a ws 855 1932

289 Photograph of Hathorn’s soft steel

ES Sd ae le a oa ge sae 855 1933

294 og Sd eee 912 1935-88

I calcweeeédee ce 68 1935

Laverty 856, Dee aes SPSS a 913 1939

caches 914. he eo ou eu vig 915 1941

* Gravell 1,398,507 Be ate oe 1943

NE EE oc ccc wcwccececes 916 1945

SE RED 4 oc vawececcecs 95, 897 1947

Gravell and Douty 1,678,776....... 1950

Fischer et al. 1,736,282............ 917 1954

BUN IIE oa os nc ccucccccesse 918 1957

IE os cc ccouhice vers 920 1961

AE I i cob ce lew dee eas 920 1964

Harrison. ee 921 1968

ee ee Re ay 0S 921 1971

Lawrence 1,780,594 ............... 922 1974

Lawrence 1,760,506 .......5....0.. 1976

NE UIE o's do in cic bic acce sc 923 1978

ND NID 5. dow vo oo cio'd noes es 9223 1980

RO IEE Og oc cha dcacoccs os 923 1985

Se oD wacwsecsecee 76 1988

300 Memorandum given by Grebe to de-

fendant’s witness Thomas........... 1012 1993

301 Letter, C. Plummer to The Dow Chem-

ical Company, dated December 1, 1932.1016 1994-97

302 Memorandum of conversation with

Ross T. Sanford, dated December 8,

TSE Gaeta a aa cae 1016 1998-99

303 Memorandum of conversation with

John J. Grebe, dated December 8, :

Ta et re red 1023 2000-02

304 Preliminary draft of patent applica-

tien of John J. Grebe, dated June 7,

ce ree aces 6c. 1025 2002-09

312 File history of Grebe and Sanford pat-

WR TI oon csc uccvcucescccecs: 2010-46

314 Conception data sheet signed by John

OS SL See ee 2047

All exhibits are printed in Volume IV unless otherwise indicated.

bitRy pee

IN THE

United States District Court

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN -

NORTHERN DIVISION

Pleadings and proceedings before the HonoraJe Arthur J.

Tuttle, Judge of the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Michigan, in the following entitled

cause : )-

- No. 45

] Tue Dow CHemicaL Company, a CORPORATION,

: Plaintiff.

‘ vs.

3 Hauursurton Or WeLL CEMENTING COMPANY,

A CoRPORATION,

: Defendant.

;

Complaint

COMPLAINT

(Filed June 15, 1939)

(1) This is an action for infringement of United

States Letters Patent.

(2) Jurisdiction is founded on the Patent Laws of the

United States.

(3) Plaintiff is a corporation created and existing

under the laws of the State of Michigan, and has a principal

place of business at Midland, Michigan.

(4) Defendant is a corporation created and existing

under the laws of.the State of Delaware, having a principal

place of business at Duncan, Okla., licensed to do business

in the State of Michigan, and having a regular and estab-

lished place of business at Mt. Pleasant, Isabella County,

Michigan, within the Eastern District of Michigan, North-

ern Division, where, and elsewhere, it has committed the

acts herein complained of.

(5) Letters Patent of the United States were duly and

regularly issued to plaintiff as follows:

No. 1,877,504, on September 13, 1932, for ‘‘Treatment

of Deep Wells,’’ as assignee of John J. Grebe and Ross T.

Sanford, both of Midland, Michigan.

(Here are listed three other patents that are not in-

volved in the appeal, viz., Grebe 1,916,122, for Method of

Treating Wells with Acid; Grebe and Stoesser 1,998,756,

for Treatment of Deep Wells, and Chamberlain 2,024,718,

for Treatment of Weils.)

Proffert of said Letters Patent, or duly certified copies

thereof, is hereby made.

(6) Since the dates of issuance of said Letters Patent

plaintiff has been and still is the owner thereof.

(7) Letters Patent No. 1,877,504, aforesaid, were held

valid and infringed by the United States Circuit Court of

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in the case of The Dow

Chemical Company vs. Williams Brothers Well Treating

Corporation. (81 Fed. 2d 495.)

VP Ri OS ’

“omplamt

(8) Defendant fer ©. time past, and within six

years prior to the filir this suit, has been and still is

infringing said Letters | atent, ard each of them, by prac-

ticing, in the Eastern District, Northern Division, of Mich-

igan and elsewhere within the United States, the process of

treating wells disclosed and claimed in said Letters Patent,

and each of them, and particularly in Claims Nos. 1, 5, 7,

8 and 9 of Letters Patent No. 1,877,504; and will continue

to do so unless enjoined by this court.

(9) Defendant has been notified of plaintiff’s owner-

ship of said Letters Patent, and each of them, and of its

infringements thereof, and notwithstanding said notice de-

fendant has continued said infringements.

Wherefore, plaintiff demands a preliminary and a final

injunction against further infringement by defendant and

those controlled by defendant, an accounting of profits and

damages, and an assessment of costs against defendant.

Amended Answer of Defendant

AMENDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT

(Filed Sept. 11, 1940)

Defendant, Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Com-

pany, answering the Complaint, filed on or about June 15,

1939, of the Dow Chemical Company, Plaintiff, says:

1. Answering Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, de-

fendant admits that this is an action for infringement of

Letters Patent. ’

2. Answering Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, defend.

ant admits the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

3. Answering Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, defend-

ant admits that plaintiff is a corporation created and exist-

ing under the laws of the State of Michigan and has.a

principal place of business at Midland, Michigan.

4. Answering Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, defend-

ant admits that defendant is a corporation created and

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware; that it

has a principal place of business at Duncan, Oklahoma; and

that it is licensed to do business in the State of Michigan

and has a regular and established place of business at Mt.

Pleasant, Isabella County, Michigan, within the Eastern

District, Northern Division. Defendant denies that it has

committed the acts complained of in the Complaint.

5. Answering Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, defend-

ant admits that on September 13, 1932, United States Let-

ters Patent No, 1,877,504 were issued to plaintiff, as as-

signee of John J. Grebe and Ross T. Sanford, for ‘‘Treat-

ment of Deep Wells’? but denies that said Letters Patent

were duly and regularly issued.

* * * -_ *

6. Answering Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, defend-

ant admits that since the dates of issuance of the several

patents in suit the plaintiff has been, and was at the date

of the filing of this action, the owner of said patents.

7. Answering Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, defend-

ant admits that Letters Patent No. 1,877,504 aforesaid,

* po” ie

ay igs hoe ae pis a

(ALG eae eee

Amended Answer of Defendant

were involved in litigation in the case of The Dow Chemical

Company vs. Williams Brothers Well Treating Corpora-

tion in the United States Cireuit Court of Appeals for the

Tenth Cireuit (81 F. (2d) 495), but asserts that there is no

couneetion whatever between the defendant in that case

and the defendant herein and asserts that defendant herein

is not using the agents for inhibiting corrosion claimed to

have been used by the Williams Brothers Well Treating

Corporation, or any of the agents for inhibiting corrosion

referred to and defined in the claims of Letters Patent

1,877,504, in suit. Defendant denies that all the claims wf

Letters Patent 1,877,504 aforesaid, were held valid by the

United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Cir-

euit and asserts, particularly, that Claim 9 of said Letters

Patent 1,877,504, one of the claims charged to be infringed

herein, was not before the United States Circuit Court of

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the case of The Dow Chem-

ical Company vs. Williams Brothers Well Treating Corpora-

tion, supra.

8. Answering Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, defend-

ant denies that it has at any time infringed, and denies that

it is now infringing, the aforesaid Letters Patent, or either

of them, by practicing in the Eastern District, Northern

Division of Michigan, or elsewhere in the United States,

processes embodying the alleged patented inventions, and

particularly claims 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of Letters Patent

1,877,504, and defendant denies that it will infringe any of

said Letters Patent unless enjoined by this court.

9, Answering Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, defend-

ant denies that it has been notified of plaintiff’s ownership

of said Letters Patent, or any of them, and denies that it

has been notified of the alleged infringement of any of said

Letters Patent and defendant denies that, notwithstanding

notice, it has committed any acts of infringement.

Further answering the Complaint:

10. Defendant avers that plaintiff has asserted, and is

asserting in this action, a broad and dominating monopoly

wholly unsupported by any invention made by the alleged

6 C

Amended Answer of Defendant

inventors of the Letters Patent in suit, and wholly uysup-

ported by any invention disclosed by the patents in suit.

11. Defendant avers that it is not using any invention

claimed, or even disclosed, by any of the Letters Patent in

suit. On the contrary, defendant is utilizing methods de-

veloped or designed by others than the patentees in the

patents in suit. Defendant is utilizing, among others, meth-

ods described and covered by the following Letters Patent

of the United States issued to defendant as assignee:

No. 2,122,483, Paul L. Menaul, July 5, 1938, ‘‘ Methods

and Means for Acidizing Wells”’;

No. %,149,617, Paul L. Menaul, March 7, 1939, ‘‘ Meth-

ods and Apparatus for Handling Acidie Solutions.”’

12. Defendant avers upon information and belief that

the Letters Patent in suit, and particularly the claims

thereof herein charged to be infringed, and each of them

were so restricted and limited in secpe by the procedure in

the Patent Office prior to the issuance of said Letters

Patent that such claims, and each of them, if valid at all,

are not entitled to a construction which will include or cover

any device, composition of matter or process made, sold,

used or practiced by defendant; wherefore, defendant de-

nies infringement of any of the claims of said Letters

Patent.

13. Defendant avers upon information and belief that

the claims of the Letters Patent in suit herein charged to be

infringed cover mere aggregations or old combinations of

method steps and riot new patentable methods and are,

therefore, invalid under the law.

14. Defendant alleges upon information and _ belief

that the claims of the Letters Patent in suit herein charged

to be infringed distinguish over the prior art existing at the

time of the alleged inventions only by the substitution of

known equivalent steps in the methods of the prior art.

15. Defendant alleges upon information and _ belief

that the patentees of Letters Patent 1,877,504 in suit sur-

reptitiously and unjustly cbtained the patent for things

which are in fact the invention of W. A. Thomas of Sagi-

DP TEL Es SE yawee

ie oie nd

Amended Answer of Defendant

naw, Michigan, now of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, who was

using reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting the

same.

16. Defendant avers upon information and belief that

the claims of Letters Patent 1,877,504, charged to be in-

fringed by this defendant, are inivalid and void and of no

effect for the following reasons:

(a) That the methods desgribe -d and claimed in each

of said claims, respectively, ot materia! and substantial

parts thereof, were patented or tteseribed in printed publi-

cations prior to the alleged invention or discovery thereof

by the patentees of the patent in suit, or more than two

years prior to their application for Letters Patent therefor,

as follows:

United States Letters Patent

Number Patentee Date of Issue

288,150 B. F. Aiken, Jr. Nov. 6, 1883

372,154 A. Krause Oct. 25, 1887

556,651 J. W. Van Dyke March 17, 1896

556,669 Herman Frasch March 17, 1896

670,577 G. L. Ball March 26, 1901

856,644 C. E. Laverty June 11, 1907

914,916 J. C. Beneker March 9, 1909

1,194,542 N. H. Raymond Aug. 15, 1916

1,221,735 A. F. Hoffman, et al April 3, 1917

1,325,293 L. S. Hoon Dec. 16, 1919

1,365,141 M. A. Adam Jan. 11, 1921

1,382,337 G. C. Bellis June 21, 1921

1,398,507 J. H. Gravell Nov. 29, 1921

1,399,651 Adolph Pessi Dec. 6, 1921

1,410,827 W. F. Muehl March 28, 1922

1,421,706 R. Van A. Mills July 4, 1922

1,428,085 J. H. Gravell Sept. 5, 1922

1,433,579 Otto Vogel Oct. 31, 1922

1,460,395 Otto Vogel July 3, 1523

1,470,225 Harry N. Holmes Oct. 9, 1923

1,476,747 F. H. Wolever Dec. 11, 1923

Amended Answer of Defendant

Number

1,498,045

1,513,371

1,524,435

1,531,173

1,549,411

1,608,709

1,605,869

1,615,121

1,619,835

1,632,833

1,635,500

1,678,775

1,678,776

1,713,653

1,719,167

1,719,650

1,721,389

1,723,923

1,729,097

1,734,990

1,736,282

1,746,677

1,746,678

1,748,494

1,750,651

1,756,311

1,757,829

1,766,902

1,773,953

1,780,594

1,780,595

1,785,513

1,789,805

1,796,839

1,804,078

1,805,052

1,806,499

Patentee

F’. W. Lake

A. C. Campbell

A. F. Hoffman, et al

J. D. Brady ~-

J. H. Gravell

R. Van A. Mills

Elvin Tilton

M. E. Fyleman

B. S. Summers

J. H. Gravell

H. FE. Potts

J. H. Gravell

G. D. Chamberlain

J. H. Gravell

J. G. Davidson

I. H. Derby

A. H. Ackerman

Chas. Fischer, Jr.

Fred H. Rhodes

Paul I. Murrill

James (, Vignos

W. L. Semon

Viktor Bertleff

M. M. Harrison

H. P. Corson, et al

R. E. Lawrence

W. S. Caleott, et al

F. D. Burke

J. H. Gravell, et al

M. W. Baden

L. B. Sebrell

Leo Ranney, et al

Date of Issue

June

Oct.

Jan.

March

Ang.

Nov.

Jan.

March

June

July

May

July

Aug.

Sept.

Nov.

Feb.

March

April

May

June

Aug.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

March

May

li,

28,

27,

24,

11,

30,

18,

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

OMS 08 RT FT eee

Amended Answer of Defendant

Number

1,808,185

1,808,188

1,808,200

1,809,621

1,822,271

1,823,439

1,823,440

1,829,705

1,843,376

1,843,783

1,850,757

1,861,176

1,861,177

1,873,083

1,873,084

1,881,721

1,891,667

1,892,205

1,894,759

163,519

Iron’’;

Patentee

DD. H. Tomkins

@ D. H. Tomkins

T. W. Bartram, et al

H. P. Corson

G. W. Coggeshall

Melvin DeGroote

J. C. Walker

Richard Stusser

August Regal

S. I. Levy

Melvin DeGroote

J. C. Walker

J. M. Leaper

R. H. Carr

Melvin DeGroote

Date of Issue

June

Sept.

Oct.

Feb.

March

May

Aug.

Oct.

Dee.

Jan.

BRITISH LETTERS PATENT

Martin FE. Fyleman

May

PRINTED PUBLICATIONS

Builetin 233 of U. S. Bureau of Mines (1925 )entitled ‘* Pro-

tection Against Corrosion in Oil & Gas Fields’’;

Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, June 1928, Vol. 20,

No. 6 pp. 582-587, article entitled ‘‘The Electrochemical

Action of Inhibitors in the Acid Solution of Steel and

2, 1931

9, 1931

8, 1931

15, 1931

15, 1951

27, 1931

2, 1932

22, 1932

31, 1932

23, 1932

11, 1932

20, 1932

27, 1932

17, 1933

26, 1921

Petroleum Development & Technology (1926) ‘Corrosion

in an Oi] Refinery’? by H. F. Perkins, Port Arthur,

Texas, pp. 560-570 and diseussion 479-480.

Corrosion—Causes and Prevention--1926, by Frank N.

Sheller;

: =

Amended Answer of Defendant

Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 9,

September, 1929, pp. 539, et seq. ‘Inhibitors as a Means

of Reducing Corrosion’’ by E. L. Chappell.

Bulletin of Bureau of Mines entitled ‘‘Water Problems in

the Northern Part of the Cushing Field, Creek County,

Oklahoma’’ by D. P. Wardell, et al., February, 1927;

Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, July, 1927, Vol.

34, No. 7, pp. 421-424, articles entitled ‘Practical Ap-

plication of Inhibitors in Pickling Operations”’ by

Speller & Chappell, and ‘‘Removing Rust from System

with Piping Acid’’ by Speller, et al;

Principles of Electrochemistry by Blum and Hogaboom

(First Edition) (pages 64-67) ;

Bureau of Mines Technical Paper No. 15, (1913), entitled

‘‘An Kiectrolytic Method of Preventing Corrosion of

[ron and Steel’’ by J. K. Clement and L. V. Walker

and also other patents and printed publications, the names,

numbers, dates and authors of which are not at present

known to defendant, but which when ascertained defendant

prays leave to add hereto.

(b) The methods described and claimed in each of the

claims of Letters Pateat 1,877,504 in suit do not involve

invention over the prior art cited ir paragraph (a) hereof,

but represent, at most, the exercise of mere skill in the art.

were not thevriginal and first inventors or discoverers of

the things patented thereby, or of any material or sub-

stantial part thereof, but prior to the alleged invention

thereof by the said patentees of said Letters Patent, the

same were, if invention be involved therein, invented by

or known to the patentees listed in paragraph (a) hereof,

at the addresses given in the Letters Patent and applica-

tions involved, and by:

Muskegon Oil Corporation, Muskegon, Michigan:

Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and

its subsidiaries;

Girasselli Chemical Company, Cleveland, Ohio:

Ohio Oil Company, Cleveland, Ohio:

Amended Answer of Defendant

Solar Refining Company, Lima, Ohio; and

American Chemical Paint Company, Ambler, Penn-

sylvania,

Gulf Oil & Refining Company, Pittsburgh, Penn-

sylvania |

and also by others not now known to defendant, but which

when ascertained, defendant prays leave to add hereto.

(d) That prior to the alleged invention by the paten-

tee in Letters Patent 1,877,504 in suit, or more than two

years prior to the filing of the application for said Letters

Patent, the alleged invention thereof had been in public

use or on sale in the United States by:

Muskegon Oil Corporation, Muskegon, Michigan, at

or near Muskegon, Michigan;

Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and

its subsidiaries, in or near Lee County, Kentucky;

in or near Claiborne Parish, Louisiana; and in

various places in Oklahoma;

Grasselli Chemical Company, Cleveland, Ohio, at

East Chicago, or Grasselli, Indiana;

Ohio Oil Company, Cleveland, Ohio, at or near Lima,

Ohio and Findlay, Ohio;

American Chemical Paint Company, Ambler, Penn-

sylvania, at Ambler, Pennsylvania ;

Gulf Oil & Refining Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-

vania at Homer, Louisiana,

and by the patentees listed in paragraph (a) hereof, at the

addresses given in their respective patents and applications

therefor, end also by others not now known to defendant,

but which when ascertained, defendant prays leave to add

hereto.

(e) That Letters Patent 1,877,504 are invalid and void

because granted by the Patent Office through inadvertence,

accident or mistake. Defendant alleges that the Primary

Examiner was interviewed during the pendency of the ap-

plication which matured into Letters Patent 1,877,504,

while the Assistant Examiner, who was an expert in the

art, was away on his vacation. At this interview the Ex-

¥2

Amended Answer of Defendant

— ———_$. —___.

uminer was given to undérstand, intentionally or otherwise,

that, contrary to the facts, the prior art did not disclose the

use of hydrochloric acid for the treatment of oil wells. The

Examiner informed counsel, in writing, of this understand-

ing. Counsel did not correct the Examiner’s mistaken

views, but immediately paid the final fee and had the patent

issued,

(f) That the invention or discovery purported to be

covered by Letters Patent 1,877,504 alleged to have been

the joint invention of John J. Grebe and Ross T. Sanford

was in fact the sole invention of John J. Grebe only.

(g) That the invention or discovery purported to be

covered by Letters Patent 1,877,504 alleged to have been

the joint invention of John J. Grebe and Ross T. Sanford

was in fact the sole invention of Ross T. Sanford only.

(h) That the invention or discovery purported to be

covered by Letters Patent 1,877,504 alleged to have been

the joint invention of John J. Grebe and Ross T. Sanford

was in fact the joint invention of John J. Grebe, Ross T.

Sanford and W. A. Thomas.

(i) That the invention or discovery purported to be

covered by Letters Patent 1,877,504 alleged to have been the

joint invention of John J. Grebe and Ross T. Sanford was

in fact the joint invention of John J. Grebe and W. A.

Thomas.

(j) That the invention or discovery purported to be

covered by Letters Patent 1,877,504 alleged to have been

the joint invention of John J. Grebe and Ross T. Sanford

was in fact the joint invention of Ross T. Sanford and W.

A. Thomas.

Wherefore defendant prays that said Letters Patent

No. 1,877,504, be declared invalid and of no force or effect ;

that defendant be decreed to not infringe the aforesaid

Letters Patent; that costs herein be taxed against the plain-

tiff; and that the Complaint herein be dismissed, and for

such other and different relief as to the cotrt may be just

and equitable,

Stipulation Re Previous Litigation

COUNTERCLAIM

The Answer included a Counterelaim based on Gravell

Patent 1,678,775, issued July 31, 1928, for storage and

transportation of acid mixtures in steel drums, which

counterclaim was dismissed and no appeal tuken therefrom.

STIPULATION RE PREVIOUS LITIGATION

The following stipulation was entered into with re-

spect to previous litigation on Grebe and Sanford Patent

No. 1,877,504:

‘1. That snit was brought by the Dow Chemical Com-

pany vs. Williams Brothers Well Treating Corporation, on

or about the 24th day of April, 1934, for the alleged in

fringement of United States Patent to Grebe et al., No.

1,877,504.

“92 That said suit eame on for trial in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Okla-

homa, before the Honorable Judge F. E. Kennamer, during

the month of September, 1954.

‘3. That by final decree on or about January 15, 1935,

the Bill of Complaint was dismissed.

4. Plaintiff, The Dow Chemical Company, thereupon

took an appeal to the United States Cirenit Court of Ap

peals for the Tenth Cireuit, which appeal was docketed as

No. 1285.

Stipulation Re Previous Litigation

‘5. That the decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of

Appeals was as reported in 81 Fed. (2d) 495.

‘6. That for the purposes of this stipulation, the

transcript of testimony and the copies of exhibits printed

in the transcript of record on appeal to said United States

Circuit Court of Appeals, for the Tenth Circuit, entitled

‘The Dow Chemical Company, Appellant, vs. Williams

Brothers Well Treating Corporation, Appellee,’ shall be

considered as being true, complete and correct copies of

such testimony and exhibits before the District Court, sub-

ject to correction of such copies of exhibits on comparison

with originals thereof, should error appear.

‘*7. That if called and sworn to testify as witnesses

lerein, the following individuals,

L. C. Case W. A. Hower

S. C. Kiser R. S. Knappen

Harry F. Wright R. L. Wright

who gave testimony in the aforesaid case of the Dow Chem-

ical Company vs. Williams Brothers Well Treating Corpor-

ation, either on examination in open court or by deposition

taken out of court, each would testify to the same facts as

they testified to in the said’ former cause, subject to correc-

tion by any additional testimony of any of said individuals

taken on behalf of either party hereto. |

‘*8. That insofar as the same may be relevant to any

issue herein, either party hereto may offer as evidence in

this cause, any portion of the fact testimony of the above

identified witnesses named in paragraph 7 hereof, or any

portion or portions of any exhibit offered in the aforesaid

Williams Brothers case, with the same force and effect as

though such testimony had been taken or exhibits had been

offered herein, subject to the right of the opposing party

to object to any such offer on any ground that might be

urged against it herein, if said witnesses had been sworn

and examined, or such exhibit had been offered in this cauge,

whether or not such testimuny or exhibit was objected to at

the time it was taken or offered in said former cause.’’

a eg Toe ae.

Statement of Testimony and Proceedings in District Court

NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF TESTIMONY AND

PROCEEDINGS IN DISTRICT COURT

Following is a statement of the testimony and pro-

ceedings in the District Court, portions of which are in

narrative form and other portions in question and answer

form.

The following exhibits were marked and offered:

Copy of Grebe-Sanford Patent 1,877,504 as PX-1.

Copy of Grebe Patent 1,916,122 as PX-2.

Copy of Grebe-Stoesser Patent 1,998,756 as PX-3.

Copy of Chamberlain Patent 2,024,718 as PX-4.

Copy of Gravel] Patent 1,678,775 as DX-5.

JAMES 0. LEWIS,

a witness called by plaintiff, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I live in Houston, Texas, and am a consulting petro-

leum engineer. I got my technical training at the Univer-

sity of Stanford where I graduated as a geologist, prepared

for petroleum geology. After graduation I spent two vears

with the Associated Oil Company in California as a field

geologist, and after that I spent three years employed by

James O. Lewis

Harry R. Johnson of Los Angeles and Robert B. Moran

then of San Francisco. My work was partly field geology,

concerned with oil, except for one special job of a few

months, and also some engineering problems in the produc-

tion and valuation of oil, and the drainage of oil under-

ground.

I then went with the United States Bureau of Mines in

the fall of 1914, and was with them for six years.

My first position was that of oil and gas inspector,

doing joint investigation work for the United States Bureau

of Mines, and the Indian agency of Muskogee, Oklahoma. I

worked jointly with the Indian office and the United States

Bureau of Mines investigating the causes and remedies for

the waste of oil and gas which were then taking place in

Oklahoma. I was in that work for one year, and I was then

employed by the Bureau of Mines directly for two years in

investigative work, mainly concerned with methods for in-

creasing the recovery of oil; methods for estimating the

future production of oil and gas, and other methods for

conserving oil and gas. During that time I wrote three

technical bulletins and papers for the Bureau of Mines.

In 1918 I was placed in charge of the Bureau of Mines

Petroleum Experimental Station at Bartlesville, Oklahoma.

The station was just being founded. It was the first pe-

troleum station of the Bureau of Mines. Also during that

year we had outside work—I mean in addition to the or-

ganization of the station, in helium problems, which were

then active, working out methods for the Bureau of Internal

Revenue, for estimating the reserves of oil and gas, to be

used in connection with depletion allowance in income

taxes, and other activities in Oklahoma, and elsewhere in

the United States dealing with conservation.

During 1919 and 1920 I was chief petroleum technol-

ogist of the Bureau of Mines, that is, I was in charge of all

petroleum work of the Bureau of Mines during those two

vears, and was located in Washington, D. C. I left the

Bureau of Mines in 1920, and went to Marietta, Chio, and

hecame a member of the firm of Smith & Dunn. The firm

ae Sia a

IS ye pt, Wet, CBS one ie Te saa Ce a . YR ESS Pa eae

RAE MEE EAST ALE IETS SOT NR ORE AER Pa NS iis Bo Se

ERR SSIES ey et ae

James O. Lewis

of Smith & Dunn had a patented process for increasing the

recovery of oil by injecting air or gas into depleted oil

fields.

In the fall of 1920 I moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma, with

Mr. Dunn, and we formed the firm of Dunn & Lewis, which

_ was in business together until about a year ago. Mr. Dunn

_Was the inventor of this process of increasing the recovery

of oil, also other processes for cleaning out wells, and help-

ing recovery of oil and gas. Our business there was a gen-

eral petroleum engineering business but specializing in

methods for recovering oil and gas. We had a number of

properties which we took over, some under management,

some under ownership, to which we applied this process of

Mr. Dunn’s and other processes. We also had consulting

work from larger companies, advising on various matters,

namely, South Penn, Central, New Jersey, Tidewater, Pe-

troleum Gas Company, and some other gas companies.

During these vears I have done a great deal.of consulting

work on valuation, estimations of oil and gas and various

problems relating to the production and recovery of oil and

gas. Mostly my work has been on the conditions which

exist underground, and the methods for bettering the re-

covery of oil and gas therefrom.

About a year ago, I dissolved partnership with Mr.

Dunn and have been located in Houston, Texas, as a con-

sulting engineer in such problems. At present I am en-

gaged in a joint problem for a group of companies in Cal-

ifornia, one of the largest fields there—the Kettleman

North Dome Field—working out problems connected with

what is known as the cycling of gas from the very deep

sand which should be used by these joint operations. These

companies include most of the larger operating companies

in California. I also have similar problems on increasing

the recovery of oil in some properties of an English com-

pany in Trinidad which company happens to be the largest

producer of oil of any British-owned colony.

Q. Now, I wish you would tell the court, please, what

were the actual conditions, we will say, before acidizing

James O. Lewis

became popular, as to the percentage of the oil in the ground

whieh was actually gotten out. Tell them both as to lime

stone and sandstone. A. It has always been rather a

difficult question to estimate how much oil actually is in

the ground, and hard to give general answers in magnitude

and figures. Also, there have been changes in the character

of fields which haye been fdund at different times and in

the methods of producing that oil and gas. In the earlier

part of the industry tnost of the oil was produced from

what is known as tight sands—they call them sand but

really they are sandstones, originally laid down as loose

sands but in the course of geological changes have been

cemented and the permeability had become quite low. The

oil and gas found in them was quite difficult to obtain.

While that character of field was being produced, the re-

covery was obviously quite low. In 1917 I estimated the

average recovery was between 10% and 20%. That is, from

80% to 90% of the oil was being left underground. That

was probably a little low. Probably they were getting a

little more than that, as we since have found out. It wasn’t

very far from the real order of magnitude. Since that time

the character of fields has been different. We have been

finding more deep fields, more oil has come out from sands,

nore permeable, and have made advancements in recovery.

So the efficiency of recovery is better, considerably. Prob-

ably at the present time the recovery is of the order around

40%.

Now, as to the limestones, there is much greater vari-

ability in the question of limestohes, and consequently the

percentage of extractable oil—probably on the average, the

percentage of extractable oil is somewhat higher in lime-

stones than it has been in sandstones. That is, instead of it

being of the order 20% in the tight sands, so-called in lime-

stone, it is more likely to be 30%, possibly a little greater.

That was up prior to the extensive use of acid.

Q. Now, how long has it been since this increasing of

the production of wells was recognized as a real problem

to be met by the industry? A. Well, it was almost recug-

SOPRA. AEE AES LAIRD NO BB I BS

WENGE Sabie aay

f =

sid aa a i ang

James O. Lewis

—_—_-

nized from the beginning to some extent. That is, the first

producers found that the wells would come in in large vol-

umes, comparatively large volumes, and then quickly the

amount of oil which the well would produce would shrink, so

they were almost immediately confronted with the fact of a

diminished return following the completion of the well, and

became interested in methods which would tend to increase

the daily production.

They did not so quickly become conscious of the fact

that after the well had ceased producing, they had not ex-

hausted all the oil, but it was not many years before they

commenced to sev that they were not getting all the oil,

though jt took quite a long while for them to get a means

of estimating quantitatively how much that was. They

knew they were losing some of the oil, and it must be a con-

siderable quantity. The original first Drake well, the first

petroleum well in this ‘country, was in 1859.

Q. And how long was it after that before they had

some recr~* evidence of efforts to increase the productivity

pf the wells? A. Well, from the standpoint of merely in-

creasing the daily production of wells, with no respect to

whether or not the ultimate production was increased, there

are records almost immediately of going in and cleaning

out wells. They recognized that the formations wowld cave

off the walls of the hole and fill up the hole. They would

go in and clean that out.

Also they had devices for-lifting the oil by various

pumping means. Gas lifts were first applied very early in

the industry, at least, tried out, and as soon as a well ceased

to flow under its natural pressure, there were many ex-

pediencies applied to increase its daily production,

’ Then, in 1865, the first method which went further than

that, which went more than merely cleaning out the hole it-

self and bettering the lifting means, was applied by Colonel

Roberts, who was the colonel in the U. S. Army during the

Civil War *ho invented the torpedo, as he called it. That

is, his method was to put in a charge of nitroglycerine into

the well, explode it there, which would enlarge the hole and

crack the formations back from the hole some distance, just

James O. Lewis

oe - ——-—

how far he did not know, and also tend to clean off the walls

of the hole of obstructing materials.

Mr. Lyon:

Your Honor please, it seems to me that from the wit-

ness’ last statement, something that happened in the Civil

War, judging by the fact he said he was a graduate of

Stamford University, and Stamford was not founded until

the 90’s, this witness is not testifying to anything of his

own knowledge.

The Court:

I take it this is the recorded history, like who dis-

covered the steamboat.

Mr. Lyon:

It seems to me this is not the proper way to prove it;

to prove the history, | mean, by an oral witness.

The Court:

Well, if it is history, it cannot affect the decision of

the lawsuit really. It is just background, and I don’t want

him to use up very much of my time or their money in

order to prove this. I take it that if he isn’t corrected

by some of the people connected with your side he is cor-

rect about it. I take this as background and history of an

art that goes way back beyond anything I will use in de-

ciding the lawsuit, and yet it is interesting.

Mr. Wiies:

Of course, we want to show that this has been a prob-

lem ever since the industry started.

The Court:

I will let him go ahead, and he will come down to

something more recent.

By Mr. Wiles, continuing:

Q. This process that you have just mentioned as

shooting wells, that continued to a considerable extent up

to rather recent times, did it not? A. Yes, it has con-

tinued right up to the present time, and is still in use.

Shooting is not effective in all formations, either in all

sandstones or all limestones, but it has favorably affected

production, above the rate, and the ultimate recovery in

many limestone fields.

James O. Lewis

Q. Is there a rather localized effect, close to the weli,

or can it be extended for a considerable distance? A. We

know from measurements of the size of the hole after

shooting that it has not enlarged the hole very greatly,

tnat is where the hole was originally six to eight inches in

diameter, it may enlarge it to some twelve inches, some-

thing like twelve inches, and occasionally eighteen inches,

but it also cracks the rock, but how far it cracks it I do

not know, and I have never heard any figures which would

prove how far back it cracks it.

The Court:

Is there anything about whether or not the fact it

might make a well to it,—like where you applied it to the

stump out here or a hole in the ground? It doesn’t take it

with this rock, as I understand; it tends to split it rather

than throw pieces back? A. It can’t throw the rock

back because there is no place for it to go, and it can’t

blow up because you have the formations holding it down,

unless you put in an overcharge, and if you put in an over-

charge, of course, it might do damage to the top of the

well if the well was shallow. The figures T gave in 1917

were made in view of shooting the wells and the processes

of increasing recovery except the use of injected air or

gas, and except the use of flooding. In other words, they

were for methods used prior to those two processes.

The Court:

Shooting them would increase it, it helped? A. Oh,

yes, very greatly.

The Court:

What other method did you say besides the shooting

of them? A. They used various methods for cleaning

out the hole itself, and at a later date in 1869 they applied

what is known, what they then called a gas pump which

Was a vacuum pump. And, the principle on which they

“perated was to remove the atmospheric pressure and per-

mit the gases in the rock to expand an additional few

pounds.

James O. Lewis

The Court:

You mean pump the air out and make a vacuum? A.

There wasn’t any here in the underground, but they made

the casing head tight, and connected the pipe to the casing

head and applied this suction pump to it. The vacuum has

been used up to the present time.

The Court:

You made your vacuum above. Wouldn” that tend to

make that oil come up? A. It would tend to make the

oil flow more freely and expand the gas which was in the

rock. You see, your oil is flowed from the pores of your

producing formation in the wells.

The Court (Interposing) :

Held under pressure? A. Originally, your oil with

the gas in solution is under considerable pressure, and

that gas expands and pushes the oil with it to the well from

which it is lifted to the surface by either natural flow or

various mechanical means. In time your natural gas forces

become depleted and become ineffective until finally if you

don’t do something to replace these natural forces you

wouldn’t have enough force to force your remainug oil to

the well. At that stage these old operators would go and

put on their vacuum pumps, or gas pumps they then called

them, and by removing atmospheric pressure it was the

same as if they put into the sand another twelve or thirteen

pounds of pressure, because it allowed the gas to expand

against that much less pressure, and your gas in expand-

ing had atmospheric pressure, which is about 14.7 pounds

at sea level, and by using a gas pump you could remove

that pressure from it and allow the gas to expand that

additional amount.

Mr. Wiles:

Q. To get some idea of how important this vacuum

is in per cent, proportion, what is the urderground pres-

sure likely to be like, say, at several thousand feet? A.

The underground pressure, that is the original under-

ground pressure has an extremely wide range. It is usually

in approximate proportion to the depth, and usually it is

James O. Lewis

about 43 pounds pressure for each 100 feet of depth. That

is an approximation which isn’t true, but is generally true,

so that the first wells, which were shallow, had original

pressures of maybe less than one hundred pounds. In

recent years where they have been drilling to great depths

wells of ten thousand feet or more they have pressures of

five or even six thousand, even seven thousand pounds ini-

tial pressure. So that pressure varies with those great

ranges in accordance with the depth more than any other

factor.

Q. In view of those figures, the 15 pounds difference

that you can make with a vacuum would be rather insig-

nificant, would it not? A. The amount of push which the

vacuum or gas pump would make was not large and was

negligible in the deeper sands. In some of the shallower

sands it was rather important, but it could not be a highly

effective process.

Q. Now, there is a process known as re-pressuring,

is there not? A. Yes. The word ‘‘re-pressuring,’’ I might

say, is used in a good many different senses, but in the

sense T believe you mean it is the injection of either com-

pressed air or compressed gas into a depleted field. That

is, instead of what you might say putting a pull on the

sand by a gas or vacuum pump you can put a push on it

by taking air or gas and compressing it in a compressor,

and injecting it into one well and allowing it to flow

through the sand into producing wells around it. And, of

course, the pressure which you can generate in that man-

ner is unlimited, whereas the additional pressure which you

release from the sand by a vacuum pump was distinctly

limited.

The Court:

T suppose you have tried to apply your air to some

low place in the pool and get it out at a higher place?

A. There have been various theories and the theories have

been applied very largely in accordance with loeal condi-

tions. In some pools it seems to be better to distribute

your output and input wells, producing weils as they eall

James O. Lewis

them, in some structure which seems to be best to put all

your gas in the high part, and force your oil down so that

the oil will flow with gravity in addition to the aid of your

pressure. In other cases they have them put it in at the

edge of the pool and forced it up. Generally the best prac-

tice, at least a practice which the engineers seem to agree

upon, is to put it in the high part of the structure if there

is a pronounced depth to the sands.

In limestone formations the repressuring systems have

not been markedly successful. It has been tried in a good

many cases, and it is very seldom successful. The reason

seems to be that the pores in your limestones are of a dif-

ferent origin, and have a different nature than sands, and

your air or gas will, of course, take the lines of least re-

sistance, and usually in limestone there are channels of

resistance which are so much less than the body of the

limestone that your air and gas would pass through, doing

very little good.

For example, in the Trenton pool, an application I

Know of, they injected the air into the formation, and in-

stead of that air showing itself about the nearest wells, it

followed a line across the field and appeared in wells a

distance of a mile away, apparently having followed a frac-

ture zone. That seems to be the most logical explanation.

The exact conditions we were unable to get any proof of.

Q. There are methods also where you add water, are

there not? A. Yes, instead of putting in a gas, you can

put in a liquid, and practically the only liquid which would

be commercially feasible was water. I do not know of any

case where it has been very effective.

Also, prior to 1931 we used various reamers which

would go into the ground and enlarge the drill hole from

its six or eight inches to so much as three feet in diameter,

that is, ream it out mechanically. That was used to a lim-

ited extent, and did some good. It increased production

some, but not to a highly important degree.

There were also methods for removing the paraffin

which would accumulate in the pores; that is, as the well

ES GO

James O. Lewis

gets old, certain oils have paraffin waxes in them, which

would separate out; and this paraffin would accumulate in

the pores of the sands immediately around the hole and

clog it up. There are various treatments for that, such as

steaming it’ out, circulating hot oil, putting in chemicals,

electrical’ heaters, which would remove the obstruction.

That also applied to old holes where mineral matter had

been deposited in the pores of the sands and clogged it up.

To remove that they have put in light shots, which would

erack it off.

Q. As far as wells in limestone are concerned, aside

from the shooting process which came in, as you said, in

1865, was there any serious method developed that went

into practical use to any extent? A. Well, up to acidizing,

I don’t recollect any methods which came into general use

and were of any importance.

Q. When did proration come in? A. The first pro-

ration was generally effected about 1926 in Oklahoma and

created a special reason for obtaining maximum daily pro-

duction from a well. The formulas for prorating the pro-

duction of wells were based upon what they call the poten-

tial of the well, either wholly or largely. That is, if the well

had a capacity to produce, say, one thousand barrels if it

were allowed to produee its full quantity, it would be given

a higher allowable than a well which, say, could only pro

duce five hundred barrels a day. So the incentive on the

part of the operator was to put his wells in condition se

that they would make the best showing when these poten:

tial tests were made.

Q. Now during this same time, do you know of pro-

cesses for increasing the production of wells which were

tried experimentally and abandoned? A. Oh, I used to

hear of various methods and ideas of increasing recovery.

Of course, it is my business—

Mr. Lyon (interposing) :

Your Honor please, I con't think we ought, if this evi-

dence is going to be used, to receive evidence about what

this witness heard, which he characterized as abandoned

or experimental.

James O. Lewis

The Court:

If it is something you dispute, I would adhere to that,

1 think.

(). Name the methods you know about or which be-

came known in the industry so that, as an expert, you would

know about it? A. One of them I know of personally was

the idea of heating up the rock by either forcing in steam

through the producing formation or hot water or some

other fluid which would be a conveyor of keat into the rock,

the theery being that you thus reduce the viscosity of oil

and also you generate gases from the gasoline which was

a part of the oil in the rock. The idea was to pump the hot

water in through the wells right into the formation.

The Court :,

li would get cold before it could get down there. A.

That is exactly what happened. All ef those methods, how-

ever, were tried, and personally I made many, many calcu-

lations on them. They all failed Hecause the mass of heat

in the rock itself was so great that it was not feasible.

(ne plant they tried it and got a good increase, but they

‘ound that putting steam into the ro*k, they found it took

all the additicnal oil they recovered and all they produced

hefore to raise steam to heat up the rock.

The Court:

What is the temperature down there a couple of miles?

A. When you get down a couple of miles it is likely to be

around 250 degrees Fahrenheit. One hundred feet down it

will generally be the average surface temperature, which

in this (Michigan) climate, if you average the year round

temperature is about 45. That is my guess.

The Court:

You get down a mile and it would be how much? <A.

The general rule ts that your temperature increases one

devree Fahrenheit for every 70 feet of depth, and you start

at the surface. That is, vour average vearly atmospheric

temperature becomes the temnerature of the rock at about

1) to 100 feet below the ground, and your heat gradient,

as tuev eall it, begins from that point. Down south in

ee Se ORT oR Oe en Str he ee eee steed [efor wan fe eee vert tela ees

MGS IO CPS AT) Gor SRA

James O. Lewis

Texas the average surface temperature is around 75 and up

here I suppose it is about 45, so you start with a tempera-

ture which is lower, but your increase is about the same.

The Court:

One degree for each seventy feet? A. About one de-

gree for each seventy feet of depth. You have so much

pressure your water couldn’t boil. You get away above 212

degrees, only your boiling point has the factors of tempera-

ture and pressure.

The Court:

You mean you can’t get steam down in there? Can

you? A. In the shallow oil well they can insulate the tub-

ing earefally, and get down there and insulate the rock.

What happens is the steam gets in the rock, then it con-

denses, then it cools off, so all you are doing is increasing

the cycle of water. You start with the steam at the surface

of the earth and force it right down throngh the tubing of

the well into the sand. It never has been tried on deep

wells—only shallow wells. It hasn’t been successful. It

isnt practical.

Another method, to continue my answer to your ques-

tion, is to mine the oil. That is, sink shafts down to the

sand and drive tunnels along the sand and let the oil drain

out. I have seen some of those shafts and tunnels. It is

feasible at a price but it costs so much that it wouldn’t be

commercially feasible at prices we have had in recent years.

The Court:

I don’t get the idea of how you would tunnel it. A.

You would tunnel it as you would in a coal mine—sink a

shaft and drive drifts. It has been done for years.

The Court:

Drive it out sideways? A. Drive it out sideways.

There is-considerable danger in it but they have means of

overcoming that danger.

The Court:

How deep do they drive?’ A. They can go to as great

a depth as they could in ordinary mining operations.

James O. Lewis

The Court:

Well, what is that? A. I don’t know as there is any

limit. The only limit is the temperatures they reach, and

the cost. They have mines in this state over 6000 feet

deep. This mining of oil was actually carried on commer-

cially in France and Germany, where the price of oil was

greater. In this country it is not feasible at present

prices—purely a matter of cost.

The Court:

Then it goes out laterally? A. Then it goes out

laterally, and they elevate it.

By Mr. Wiles:

(). Now, taking the time from, oh say, 1910 or so,

when the automobile began to greatly increase gasoline

demand, what was the belief of the industry and of the

government as to the future of the oil supply? A. The gov-

ernment and the industry generally went through a period

of apprehensive shortage that commenced during the

World War and continued for some years thereafter. That

is, at that time they became conscious of the great need for

oil and also of the fact that our oil fields were limited and

sooner or later would exhaust. At that time there was a

feeling that the period of exhaustion was quite close, was

quite imminent. It wasn’t until the late twenties that that

apprehension was relieved, and they came to the conclusion

generally we had more oii than we had originally thought.

Q. You have reserves in sight for many more years

now than vou had, say, in 1919? A. Yes, I believe we have.

Mr. Wiles:

I have here a Bureau of Mines Bulletin No. 177, pub-

lished in 1919, and want to quote just one sentence, and I

ask vou whether this is a fair sfatement of the general

attitude of the trade and government?

‘At present the country is facing a serious shortage

o* petroleum. By wav of preparing for the best way to

meet this emergenev lie Bureau of Mines has been ecarry-

ine on teehnieal investigations in the petroleum industry

for several vears.’’ A. T believe that represents the ma-

jority of the opinion at the time.

——o

James O. Lewis

Q. Ihand you Bulletin 148 of the Bureau published in

1917 (PX-7). Is that your work? A. Yes, I wrote this

while I was with the Bureau of Mines.

Mr. Wiles (reading from bulletin at page 7) :

**In its efforts to reduce waste, and increase efficiency

in oil production, the Bureau of Mines is investigating

methods of increasing the recovery from the underground

sources of supply, which are the foundation of the petrol-

eum industry and the many allied industries wholly or

partly dependent on it. In the face of a demand that is in-

creasing faster than the production and that, in the con-

sensus of opinions of well-informed authorities, is soon

likely to outstrip the productive capacity, it is well to con-

sider whether it is not possible to extract more oil from the

known sources of supply. It is universally acknowledged

that by the usual production methods much oil is left under-

ground, the general opinion being that at least 50 per cent

of the oil in a field remains unrecovered when the field is

abandoned as exhausted. From the writer’s own investiga-

tions he believes the average recovery is even less, and if

any considerable portion of this oil being left underground

could be made available it would have a tremendously fa-

vorable influence on the petroleum industry and all the in-

dustries dependent on it.

‘In this publication are considered the principles in-

volved in increasing recovery and methods of extracting

more oil from the oil-bearing formations than by the usual

ways of producing.» These methods are: The use of gas ov

vacuum pumps, forcing compressed air or gas through the

ou-bearing formations, displacing the oil by water, and

better utilization of the natural pressures in the oil-bearing

formations. Especial attention is being given to a process

—commonly known as the Smith-Dunn—ftor foreing com-

pressed air through oil-bearing formations beeanse it is be-

lieved to hold most promise for the future.

e * 7. . *

‘That much of the oil in a field is never recovered is

well known, but how large a proportion is left underground

James O. Lewis

and the possibility of increasing the recovery cannot be

fully realized until one eclyarly understands that the ex-

haustion of an oil well is due more to the exhaustion of the

natural gas, which is the principal agent in driving the oil

into the well, than to the exhaustion of the oil itself.

‘‘Facts presented in this bulletin go to show that the

capacities of the oil sands in the various fields of the

United States are five to ten times greater than the quanti-

ties of oil commonly extracted from them. If it could be

fully established, as seems most probable, that the pores of

the oil-hearing sands were completely filled with oil at the

time the fields were first developed, then 80 to 90% of the

oil is left underground when the wells are abandoned. Al-

though the evidence at hand does not permit positive state-

ments that this proportion is being left underground, there

is abundant evidence that much oil eapable of being re-

covered remains in the sands. Complete extraction is not

to be hoped for, vet there is no reason to conclude that the

maximum possible recovery has been reached when the

natural forces have been exhausted, and, furthermore, it has

heen demonstrated that it is practicable to get more oil

from the sands by the processes described in this report.”

(The bulletin was offered and received as PX-7.)

The Court: |

Ts there any reference in this book to the acid?

Mr. Wiles:

No. This was published in 1917.

Tie Court:

Didn’t you know about the Frasch patent? A. No, T

hadn’t heard of it. During all this period up to, say, 1952

acidizing of oil wells was not one of the things that was

known and used generally all through the trade.

By Mr. Wiles:

Q. When was it that vou first heard of acidizing as a

practical proposition? A. Well, T had heard of it—in

fact, witnessed a test as early as 1918 on oil producing

sondstone to knock off the crust, and again in 1922, some-

thie like that, for the same purpose. The first T heard

James O. Lewis

of acidizing on limestone formations was,—it must have

been about 1932 or 1933. I can’t remember the exact date.

I first learned about the Frasch patent in connection with

this case, within the last month.

Q. Within your experience now, how was acidizing

received about when it was brought out in 1932? A. Well,

it was received unusually rapidly for a new art in the in-

dustry. My experience at the Bureau of Mines where our

principal function was to find end apply and introduce new

methods led us to believe there was usually from five to ten

vears’ inertia to overcome in introducing a new idea to the

industry, and this was adopted much quicker than any

other new idea within my experience.

Q. How soon was it,—how extensively did it become

used in wells in limestone? A. Well, within a very,—only

a matter of months, reports came in from almost every part

of the United States where they had limestone fields. I

think within two years I don’t believe there was an area in

which limestone production was important that—Lhadn’t

had reports that it had been used there.

The Court:

Well, we generally find seventeen vears after a patent

is granted the publie gets the thing. What explanation

have von got that that patent cf 1896 didn’t grow any fruit?

Aren’t you satisfied you could use, without any inhibitor,

an acid to better advantage than you could blast or steam

and these other things vou have been telling me about? A.

Well, it has been proved by experience that acidation is

Setter than those other processes.

The Court:

Even if you didn’t have the inhibitor? A. Well, I

couldn’t say as to that. Of course, the only thing T ean sav

is that probably the early users of acid must have en-

countered so much trouble from it that they were dis-

couraged, and these methods which were all coating pipe

would not be such as would be practical in oil wells.

The Court:

They couldn’t have tried very hard or encountered

James O. Lewis

much difficulty or the other hand of the government would

have found out about it. Here is the patent hand of the

vovernment. The government has so many hands, they

don’t find what they have got in their pockets, but here is

the Patent Office down there with this patent right on file

in there, 2nd you are right over in another branch of the

government in the same city telling all these ways, and

there is a better way than any of those vou were describing

right there, even if you did not have an inhibitor, I take it.

Maybe I am wrong about it. A. I couldn’t say as to that,

whether the raw acid might do it or not.

The Court:

Have vou got any of that history about that?) Did you

ever, you think, run into difficulty? I take it you are just

theorizing about it?) A. That is purely surmise. I have no

history.

The Court:

Isn’t there any available history about what that chap

did with his patent, or what they did out in the oil fields?

A. If there is I don’t know about it. I haven’t made any

search for it.

The Court:

Do you know, was he an oi} man? A. One of them, in

fact both of them, were in the oil business.

I recall this Frasch patent. There is a possibility that

the acid might eat around the packer.

By Mr. Wiles:

Now, my view about this is this: Frasch puts in his

patent, and he was a great man and everybody looked up

to him with the greatest respect, and he says, ‘‘You can’t

put raw acid down there or you will spoil your pipe. There-

fore, you must pull your pipe, put down a rubber covered

pipe, and then introduce it, and then take out the rubber

covered pipe and put down your pump pipe again.’’ Now,

considering the expense of bringing this special pipe in

adequate quantity, and the assembling and disassembling

vou have to go through, do you think such a process would

he acceptable to the trade at any time?

James O. Lewis

Mr. Lyon:

I object to that as too speculative, Your Honor. The

witness hasn’t qualified.

The Court:

Overruled. I have invited the question, I guess. I will

let him develop it. A. I don’t know as to what they knew

back there in 96 or what they had, but I think it would be

very difficult even under present knowledge to work out a

system which would fully protect the pipe in that manner

and prevent corrosion.

The Court:

How much is a mile of pipe worth? A. Well, it de-

pends on the size. Tubing, ordinary two inch tubing gen-

erally costs about 25 to 35 cents a foot, according to the

quality and weight of it. A mile of pipe would cost say

$1500, I should say off-hand.

The Court:

How long will it take that acid to eat through. A. I

was going to add, if they keep that acid in any length of

time it would be very difficult to get any protective which

could be taken apart and put together again that wouldn’t

allow the acid at least to get into the seams.

The Court:

If you don’t put the protective in there, how long

would it take to eat through that? A. Oh, I don’t know.

The Court:

Give me some idea? A. Well, I haven’t gone into that.

The Court:

Days or weeks or hours or years or what? A. Well,

I would say—I would have to more or less guess at it—I

would say twenty-four hours, if the acid was left in the

tubing, it would very likely eat through the walls.

The Court:

There may be some chap who hadia-poor well, a good

sport like most of them have to be to put money down in

the ground, who tried it out to see what would happen. A.

They may have tried it. I don’t know.

———

eet

James O. Lewis

By Mr. Wiles:

. Now, can you tel] us approximately the propor-

tion of the oil production that comes out of limestone? A.

Well, that is very difficult to get any precise estimates on

and I haven’t a precise estimate. All I can give you is the

order of magnitude, and I would say it is about twenty-five

per cent of the present daily production which is from lime-

stone formations.

The Court:

Is this acid any good in sandstone? A. It has had,

under special conditions, beneficial effects in some sand-

stone, where the sand contains a certain amount of carbon-

ates, and in such case the acid may eat out this carbonate

content and enlarge the pores and in that way increase the

permeation.

The Court:

Has there been any other kind of acid they use for dif-

ferent kinds? A. Yes, they have other acids. They have

proposed to use hydrofluoric acid which would eat the sand

itself, but so far as I know that has not been satisfactory.

It has not been practical. And they have mud acids which

will eat a certain content of the mud which sometimes clogs

the pores of the hole and which seems to be beneficial quite

often.

By Mr. Wiles:

Q. Can you give us a rough idea of the price range of

mid-continent crude for the period preceding 1932? Start

with the Cushing pool in 1915 when prices were way down.

A. I couldn’t give you the exact figures. About all I could

give would be some approximation. Prior to the Cushing

pool the price ranged from a low of about 50 cents up to a

little over $1.00. During the Cushing pool the price went

down to a point where they were not quoted. Oil was sald

at the Cushing pool at a net of 10 cents a barrel. That was

sold in the tank, and when you took away the tank cost, the

oil itself sold for about 10 cents.

Then in 1916 it commenced to go up again, and about

1917 it reached over $1.00. During the World War it was

——— eS see

James O. Lewis

artificially held down to I think $2.25. Then after the War

it reached an all time high of $3.50 in 1920, I believe.

In 1921 the oil price took a plunge along with other

commodity prices and it went down to $1.00 in the latter

part of 1921 or 1922. Then it wavered back and forth

reaching a high of about $2.00 and went down again about

1925, and in 1926 36-gravity oil went up to $1.86, I believe.

From 1926 to 1930 most of the time it was between

$1.00 and $1.50 and it averaged about $1.25. In the latter

part of 1929 or 1930 it started to go down again, and in 1931,

on account of the flood of oil from the East Texas pool and

also the depression, it went very low. In 1932, due to better

control of production it went up again. In 1933 proration

broke down and it went very low. Since that time, it has

averaged about $1.00 or $1.10.

CROSS EXAMINATION

I was with the Bureau of Mines from the fall of 1914

to the fall of 1920, six vears altogether. As to whether or

not during that period there was any knowledge in the

Bureau of Mines of the use of hydrochloric acid in an oil

well to react on the formation, all I can say is that I do

not remember of its having been brought to my attention.

However, there could have been knowledge of it on the

part of some of the individuals in the organization. I know

a man by the name of Rollin Van Auken Mills. He was

connected with the Bureau of Mines during the last two ~

or three years that I was there. He was a petroleum en-

gineer, and his field of work was research on the treatment

of wells and oil recovery. I think his principal problem

was on the paraffin troubles. He worked under my general

direction.

I have seen a bulletin, serial number 2550, dated De-

cember, 1923, entitled ‘‘Reports of Investigations, Depart-

ment of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Subject, The Par-

afin Problem In Oil Wells,’’ by R. Van A. Mills. It was

prepared after I left the Bureau of Mines, but I read it

Jomes O. Lewis

afterwards, and I have read it recently. The work covered

by it was started before I left the Bureau of Mines, under

my general direction.

By Mr. Lyon:

Q. Well, now, this bulletin on page 9 has a paragraph

entitled ‘‘Hydrochlorie acid,’’ and the text starts, ‘‘The

Bureau of Mines has experimented with the use of hydro-

chloric acid,’’ and so forth. Do you have any knowledge of

the work that is referred to there? A. Well, I knew some

of the work that he did before I left the Bureau of Mines;

I know he had tried various chemicals in wells.

With reference to the patent issued to Mr. Mills No.

1,421,706, dated July 4, 1922, on an application filed October

15, 1918, I knew that he was filing for several patents, but

I did not know just what they covered. He was connected

with the Bureau of Mines on October 15, 1918.

Q. (By Mr. Lyon) This patent or patent application

was dedicated to the public by Mr. Mills under the Act of

March 3, 1883, as noted on the patent. Was that at your

direction as head of the department? A. No, it wouldn’t

be under my direction, because I wouldn’t have anything

to do with the control of policies which refer to patents. I

believe it was the practice of the members of the staff of

the Bureau of Mines, while I was in charge, in filing patent

applications to dedicate their use to the public under the

Act of March 3, 1883.

Q. Now, this patent, on page 2, line 18, refers to the

acid treatment of wells. Do you know what that refers to?

A. I wouldn’t know without reading the patent itself to see.

There are two ways in which acid has been used in wells.

One was the one I described yesterday as having witnessed

in 1918 where it was used to remove the incrustations of

mineral matter and mineral matter which had been de-

posited in the pores of sand. The other is to be used only

in limestone wells, and I don’t know what that refers to.

Q. Now, did you have knowledge of both of those

methods while you were with the Bureau of Mines? A. The

5 eel aed

Dw a eed WE as

NE nee a ter eRe ae Tt EE ee Pee CORO Me Tae ey, eee ee eo eee ee

James O. Lewis

only one that came to my attention while I was with the

Bureau of Mines was the one for removing mineral incrus-

tations in the sandstone wells.

Q. What is the difference in the action of the hydro-

chloric acid after you pump it down the well and force it

into the formation whether the formation is sandstone or

limestone? A. Well, only the chemical action depends on

the materials in the well on which the acid acts. If there is

any lime in the sandstone well, the reactions would be the

same as if it was only limestone formation. That is, for

that part of the reaction. Your reaction may also take place

with other mineral matters in the sandstone well, which

possibly might not be present in a limestone well.

Q. Then is there any sure distinction between these

two methods that you have referred to or do they overlap

and intermingle? A. I wouldn’t say—of course, it is a

matter of the structure of the reservoir rock. In one case

the whole reservoir rock is soluble in acid, or mostly soluble

in acid, and in the other you have a structure of insoluble

material with a filling of acid soluble material or at least

partly acid soluble material, |

Q. Well, in either case the method is the same in the

sense that you perform the same physical operations in in-

troducing acid into the well and causing it to penetrate the

formation, and the only difference is that the effect of the

acid will vary with different formations; is that correct?

A. Well, speaking broadly, I think that is correct.

Q. Now, as I understand you, even today the results

of acidizing a well are not uniform. Some wells you obtain

beneficial results and others you do not, is that correct? A.

That is the general report, yes.

Q. And particularly true on old wells, is it not? In

some old wells you can increase the production by acidizing

them; others you cannot? A. It is variable, yes.

Q. It is also true on new wells. In other words, you

may acidize the new well ard obtain no beneficial results

from the operation, is that not correct? A. That is true,

yes.

James O. Lewis

The bulletin, Serial No. 2550, above referred to, was

thereupon marked and offered as DX-8.

By Mr. Lyon:

Q. In your testimony, Mr. Lewis, yesterday you were

asked: ‘‘Q. When was it that you first heard of acidizing as

a practical proposition? A. Well, I had heard of it, in fact

witnessed a test as early 23 1918-on oil producing sandstone

to knock off the crust, and again in 1922, something like that,

for the same purpose. The first I heard of acidizing a lime-

stone formation was, it must have been about 1932 or 1933,

I cannot remember the exact date.’’ Was this work by Mr.

Mills which we have been discussing the occasion of your

hearing of the acidizing in 1922? Is that the work that you

referred to? A. That is what I had in mind, yes.

Q. That was the work that you referred to in your

testimony of yesterday? A. Yes. ,

Q. It would appear from your testimony that you had

had some earlier knowledge of acidizing, in 1918, is that cor-

rect? <A. Yes, sir. ,

Q. Who did that work? A. While I was stationed at

Bartlesville, one of the oil operators asked me to go out

there and witness a test of a well by a couple of men, I

believe they were from Kansas City. I went out there, and

they poured some acid down in the well. I don’t know

whether it was inhibited, or not, but it made quite a com-

motion. .

Do you know what kind of acid it was? A. It was

hydrochloric, I believe.

Q. What makes you believe it. was hydrochloric acid?

A. Well, just fram the reaction, but I do not know pési-

tively. I did not pay mucl attention to it because it was

just an experiment, and I was very busy with other things

at the time. But I afterwards made inquiries to find out

what had happened to the well.

Q. When, how long afterwards? A. A few weeks aft-

erwards. I found out, or, I was told that they had treated

a couple more wells, but the effects had not been worth

while, and I heard-no more about it.

James O. Lewis

Q. That could be true today, the same thing could

happen today with the present methods of acidizing, using

the present materials, could it not? A. You mean that no

worthwhile results would be obtained?

Q. You could go out to some wells and give them a

treatment, treat them, acidize them by these modern ma-

terials, and get no favorable results? A. That sometimes

happens, yes.

Q. That is all you know about that operation in 1918?

A. That is all I remember of. I do not believe there was

any reports came to my attention after that.

Q. You say the results were not worthwhile. You

mean by that that the action of the acid on the formation

did not accomplish any useful or practical purpose, is that

what you mean? A. The owner of the wells reported to me

that the results were not worth while, meaning that they

nad not increased production enough to make it worth his

while.

Q. You did not hear anything about any difficulty in

connection with corroding the pipe, did you? A. Nothing

came to my attention.

Q. How much oil, and what percentage of the oil in

the ground is supposed to be recovered today, as compared

to 1925? A. By the use of better methods, and because the

fields naturally are more conducive to high recoveries, re-

coveries are much higher today than they were at the time

that I wrote that bulletin. (PX-7.) I would say as an

approximation that the average recovery was of the order

of 40 per cent of the oil*originally in the ground.

. Q. Over what period of time? A. That is to exhaus-

tion, by present methads which are in use. When I say that

they are recovering 40 per cent from the ground, I mean

svithin the economical life of the wells. For instance, the

East Texas field was discovered in the latter part of 1930

and is still producing. There are various estimates as to

_ the percentage of the*vil in that field that has been pro-

ductd up to date. It is about 30 to 35 per cent of its ulti-

mate. That is due,*in part at least, to the fact that the

James O. Lewis

wells are largely shut in, and not allowed to flow to their

capacity, or to be pumped to their capacity. That is, they

have gotten about a third of the oil out that I think they

are going to get out. As to how much of all the oil that is

in the ground they expect to get out, the East Texas field

happens to be an unusually favorable field for high recov-

ery, and it has been operated in such a manner that this

manner of operation is favorable to high recovery, and

probably they will get over 50 per cent of the original con-

tents. I would say that this Texas field is a good example

of the fact that I called attention to in my testimony yes-

terday of the obtaining of a bigger percentage of the oil

in the ground now than was customary fifteen or twenty

years ago. I have not heard of acidizing being employed

in that field to any extent. I never heard of any acidizing

there.

I know of the Signal Hill field in California. It has

been a very remarkable field, an outstanding field in the

oil industry in this country. They started producing in

that field about 1920. That field covers the top, or mostly

the top of one hill. My recollection is that about 600,000,000

barrels of oil has been produced from that one hill or one

field. I don’t know what proportion of the oil that is sup-

posed to be in that field has been actually produced and

gotten out of the ground. I have heard that it is cited

usually as an example of the best recovery of oil that has

been accomplished up to date in any given field. That

it is the best recovery per acre, but as to the percentage of

recovery I don’t know.

My calculation of comparison in the amount of oil pro-

duced today as compared with twenty years ago, in com-

parison with what is in the ground was a broad estimate.

I didn’t go into details. I would not be willing to accept

the Signal Hill field as having one of the best records in

the oil industry in regard to per cent recovery unless I

knew more about it, because they had a tremendous thick-

ness of sand which would have given you that high recov-

ery in barrels, but might have been a low recovery in per-

FT” Oy Oe ene eS ee ee See

James O. Lewis

centage. As to whether the percentage recovery may have

been very high, I couldn’t say. I have no figures. I

never heard of any of the wells on Signal Hill being

acidized. It is not the kind of property that acidizing does

much good on.

The Court: '

The reason for that situation that vou have just told

us about is because the formation can’t be eaten by acid, or

what is it? A. Yes, sir. The formation is a sand and not

a limestone and that is true, also, of East Texas. Yes.

By Mr. Lyon:

Q. Now, you gave us a figure yesterday to the effect

you thought it would take about twenty -four hours for

hydrochloric acid to eat through a piece of oil well pipe.

You intend it to be understood that that was merely a

guess, that you did not have any basis for that figure, isn’t

that right? A. That is true.

Q. You don’t actually know the rate at which hydro-

chlorie acid dissolves or corrodes iron, do you? A. I have

looked that up at various times, but I don’t remember it

right now. I will have to look it up again.

I couldn’t say whether, if you fill a pipe with hydro-

chlorie acid, a piece of oil well tubing, there would be

enough acid in it to corrode through the pipe before the

acid exhausted its power. I understand that in this acidiz-

ing, they usually take precautions to see that the acid does

not come in contact with the casing.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

The case I spoke about in Bartlesville, where they

put acid down a well, it was a sandstonesformation, so that

all it could have done would be to wash the surface.

In the Bureau of Mines, the Petroleum Division that I

spoke of is subdivided at least so there is a department for

refining processes, and one for production processes, and

there are several others. The Bureau of Mines studies and

reports on refining methods just as fully as it does on pro-

ducing methods.

James O. Lewis

These fields Mr. Lyoh asked me about as having par-

ticularly high production—East Texas and Signal Hill,

both are sandstone formations.

The Court:

So far as this acid is concerned, you couldn’t use it?

A. Not this acid.

The Court:

It likes lime? A. Very fond of lime.

The Court:

And therefore it is useful, as I understand it, you get

a sandstone with limestone formation in it, it will break

that down and weaken it because it eats out the lime part

of it, is that the theory? A. It has had a little success in

sands which are cemented by lime.

The Court:

It would eat out the lime but wouldn’t touch— A.

—touch the sand, but it hasn’t been generally successful.

The Court:

Let me find out what you think happens. Now, take

the ordinary limestone, is it pretty pure so that it takes in

this chemical and forms a new chemical? A. Yes, it forms

ecaleium chloride.

The Court:

Well, would that be a liquid or solid? A. That is

soluble in water.

The Court:

And is there water enough down there? Should I have

a picture that it is eating this rock and then it is becoming

filles with water in there? A. According to the state-

ments made yesterday, they use a 12 to 15% acid—that

means 12 or 15% of it is acid and the rest of it is water.

So it is a solution of acid.

The Court:

And then they pump that out? A. They pump the

spent acid out of the well.

Sometimes these formations we call limestones are

dolomites, a mixture of carbonate of lime and carbonate of

magnesium. Both of those dissolve in the same solution,

except the dolomites dissolve more slowly.

; James O. Lewis

The introductory paragraph of Bulletin 351 of the

Bureau by Judge S. Rice, published in 1932, entitled ‘‘ Min-

ing Petroleum by Underground Methods,’’ which reads—

‘‘The methods of extracting petroleum from sands or

sandstones of wells have been studied for years, but while

methods have been greatly improved in the last decade the

present percentage of extraction of the total amount of oil

and sands according to various petroleum authorities is

usually only ten to thirty per cent. If stimulative methods

are used under favorable conditions the recovery may be

greater,’’ represents a generally aecepted view as of 1932.

The term ‘‘sands’’ is used very loosely in this busi-

ness, and is frequently used to cover limestone, or any-

thing else, dolomites, or anything that is an oil-producing

formation. It is sometimes used to cover anything that

will produce oil, any formation.

JAMES W. REBBECK,

a witness called by plaintiff, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I am employed at the Dow Chemical Company, Mid-

land, Michigan, in the Patent Department, and have been in

its employ since March of 1928.

L graduated from the University of British Columbia

in 1920 in the department of Chemical Engineering with a

James W. Rebbeck

degree of Bachelor of Science. Then I entered the Uni-

versity of Toronto in the fall of 1920 to take some post-

graduate work in chemistry there. I was attached te the

faculty of the Department of Chemistry of the University

of Toronto from 1920 to 1923, and in that interval obtained

the deyree of Master of Arts. From 1923 to 1926 I was on

the faculty of the Department of Chemical Engineering at

the University of Toronto. I also engaged in postgraduate

work during that time in physical chemistry, colloidal chem-

istry and organic -hemistry, and from the year 1920 to

1927, while at the University of Toronto I conducted a

number of researches on the electrolysis of glass and some

other subjects. After leaving the University of Toronto I

entered the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research at Pitts-

burgh, Pennsylvania, and from there I went to the Dow

(hemical Company as a research chemist.

In the beginning I was hired by Dow to engage in re-

search on industrial chemical problems, particularly in con-

nection with calcium chloride manufacture and uses, chlor-

ine production, bromine production, iodine and other inor- .

ganic chemicals; and then I was transferred to the problem

of corrosion, scaling, and other problems in connection with

the power plant over there in Midland, Michigan; water

purification. Then I was transferred to the metallurgical

department, and engaged to study the metallurgical prob-

lems in connection with magiesium. Then I was trans-

ferred to the fabrication department handling the manu-

facture, casting, forging, rolling, and so forth, of mag-

nesium and its alloys. That is what they call the Dow

metal, that being the trade name for a series of magnesium

base alloys manufactured by the Dow Chemical Company.

Thereafter I was transferred to the patent department,

and began studying the patent art relating to magnesium.

From that I entered the patent angle of the business of

treating oil wells and gas wells, and related wells. That

necessitated studying the patent art relating to those mat-

ters. T made a number of compilations of United States

patents in that field.

Nk ee ee ee hee

James W. Rebbeck

The files of the Dow Chemical Company in that line

and in other lines relating to the production of oil are com-

plete, so far as I know, in that special phase of production

wherein a well is treated with some material by introduc-

ing the same into the well. It includes in connection with

that other related topics, such as repressuring, the use of

heat in oil wells, chemical and non-chemical solvents. 1

haven’t a complete collection of the publications in that

line, but the patent collection, so far as it relates to the

use of materials in wells for some purposes is believed to

be quite complete.

I have heard most of the testimony of Mr. Lewis re-

garding various methods which have been tried in this

country for increasing the production of oil and can refer

to patents illustrative of the various methods to which Mr.

Lewis referred. I brought with me a collection of United

States patents that represents a selection of a much wider

and larger number of patents, and these, I believe, are very

typical of the sort of patents in this field. For simplifica-

tion in considering them I have classified them int

different groups, main groups. The classification

have adopted is as follows:

First, the use of heat in a well, and T have subdivided

that into 3 groups, where the heat is generated in the well,

or, 2, generated in the formation, or, 3, where a surface

heated heat transfer agent is introduced into the well.

The Court:

What does that middle one mean? A. That is where

the heat is produced. Passing an electric current through

the rock is an illustration of the middle classification,

namely, the generation of heat in the formation.

The second main division is the use of solvents, and

these may be subdivided into two classes—first are chemi-

eal solvents. For example, hydrochloric acid, which chemi-

cally dissolves the rock; and, second. -onchemical solvents

such as gasoline and the like, which works like water on

sugar.

The third main division is re-pressuring. The fourth,

“6 .

James W. Rebbeck

flooding. The fifth, vacuum. Then the sixth is the eatch-

all, or a miscellaneous group, such as the use of hammer

blows; another is a type where water is flowed toward the

well, and, according to the theory of the inventor, the water

is supposed to carry oil with it by adhesion. Another ex-

ample is a patent issued to Van Auken Mills, about whom

we heard some testimony; and that has to do with pre-

venting water infiltration into wells, although there is an

incidental mention of the use of acid, the purpose not being

stated.

I have not included mining operations in any of these

classes. As I said before, these are in connection with

patents wherein something is introduced into a well. Now,

I do have some information about patents on mining. I

have here a collection of patents, maybe some twenty-five

or thirty of them, more or less on the subject of what might

be called oil mining, wherein one carves out the oil bearing

earth er rock to recover the oil from the carved-out portion ;

or produces eaves, channels and the like in the oil bearing

rock to produce drainage galleries, through which oil may

be collected and be brought to the surface of the ground.

Q. Will you proceed with your classification, and call

attention to the approximate number of patents in each,

class, and select one of them as typical, and explain it to thé

court, please confine your answer to patents issued priod to

1932. A. Under the use of heat, my first classification,

Subdivision 1, a typical example is an early. patent issue t

to Edward L. Roberts, patent No. 47,458, dated April 27,

1865. This device is for bringing an explosive charge into

the bottom of a well where it can be exploded and shatters

the rock. Now, A. E. L. Robe:ts, I am advised, also ob-

tained a patent on his method in 1866, patent 59,936, copies

of which are on order at the patent office, where I would

be able to show that he had a patent on a method of in-

creasing the capacity of oil wells, which was based upon the

use of a device of this kind, or the shattering of the rock

hy an explosive.

Another example of a patent in this class, one issued to

James W. Rebbeck z

Butler G. Noble, No. 105,590, dated July 19, 1870, from

which I quote the fgllowing: ‘‘Many wells after yielding

oil in large quantities, gradually diminish in productiveness

‘¥and ultimately cease to produce in paying quantities. This

failure in yield is not always because of exhaustion of

supply but results from the clogging up of the seams or

natural ducts leading into the well bore by the deposition

of paraffin and perhaps other carbonaceous matters.’’ And

he proposes to generate heat in the well hole to melt out

these deposits, heat being generated by the combustion of

slow burning gunpowder or something of that type.

Another example more or less typical in this field is

the patent issued to James Dickey, No. 106,793, dated Aug-

ust 30, 1870, for improvement in removing deposits from

wells, and his proposal is ‘‘introducing the gas to the top of

the well and firing it thereat. When the well is cased it im-

mediately ignites the deposit in the interior of the well

casing and burns downward consuming as the fire moves

downward, and the burning ceases when the paraffin is

consumed.’’ That was to take it off of the inside of the

tubing. The gas referred to here is something which would

support combustion. It isn’t the gas from the well. The

gas that is introduced here is for the purpose of setting fire

to the paraffin deposits which are in the well. His inven-

tion is based upon this, in that it consists in burning out

the paraffin by means of oxygen or other combustible gas

introduced into the well by pipe or otherwise, and igniting

it in the presence of the paraffin so that it would be neces-

sary to put in oxygen or air, or some combustion supporting

gas, in order to carry this process out.

I had reached the Oliphant patent, Oliphant and Lyd-

don, No. 797529, in which he proposed to set a fire in the

well, which would have the effect of increasing the produc-

tion.

I will now go to the second section of my classification

of this first group of patents, involving the use of heat,

wherein heat in this instance is generated in the formation

itselfy and, as an example’ refer to Gardner 1,372,743, is-

James W. Rebbeck

sued March 29, 1921. He proposes to pass an eleciric cur-

rent from one well to another, thereby generating heat

within the earth formation, and that will serve the purpose

of moving oil towards the collecting well. He connected

the output terminals of an electric generator to the tubing

of two wells, that is to say, the positive terminal of this

output generator was connected to one of the wells and

the negative terminal to another well; the generator, the

two wells and the earth formation forming the complete

circuit for the passage of the current through the earth.

The Court:

Well, how would they fix it so that it wouldn’t start

to cross long before it got down to the bottom of the tube?

A. I don’t think he could prevent that. Nature would de-

cide where that current is going to go after it goes in one

well and crosses to the other, the path it takes between the

two is not under control. You have no control of that. The

patent states: ‘‘The operation of my improved system for

removing obstruction to the flow of fluids in earth strata is

as follows: An electric current of sufficient voltage to

overcome whatever resistance there may be in the circuit

deseribed to maintain a watt output power to increase the

temperature at the bottom of said well and in the strata

between said wells to a degree sufficient to liquify paraffin,

asphaltum, and other obstructing residue of petroleum,

and to increase the gas pressure by heat, thereby forcing

or blowing movable detritus from out the interstices and

crevices of the rock adjacent to said wells.’’

I come to a new section now where the principle of

operation is to convey heat into the well by something that

had to be heated on the surface of the ground. A simple

iNustration of that is the Phlager and Lobdell patent, No.

56,987, dated August 29, 1866. In this case the method of

conveying the heat to the bottom of the well is analogous to

the hot water coil in a hot water heating system. There is

nothing to indieate how deep a well they had in mind. How-

ever, if one considers the date of issue of this patent it must

be with reference to such wells as were known at the time.

James W. Rebbeck

My understanding of the depth of those wells is that they

were relatively shallow. I think the Drake well was 70 feet

and other wells were drilled about-450.

Patents of this same type were still issuing as years

went on. Here is one dated November 4, 1930, to C. Larsen,

No. 1,780,428, the purpose of which was to clean the bottom

portions of the oil well by the dissolution and mechanical

removal of obstructive matter such as mud, paraffin, ben-

tonite, salts, asphaltum, and other things which frequently

fill the crevices and interstices of the formation and there-

by prevent the oil from flowing into the excavation. He

attains this object by producing in the bottom portions of

the well a whirl or vortex of a hot fluid fraction. That is

accomplished by lowering a device into the well on the end

of a tubing, a device of laterally arranged jets whereby

steam is forced down the pipe, force the pressure down into

the well and squirt out into the hole.

Now, I pass over into the next group, the major di-

vision group 2, under the heading of ‘‘Chemical Solvents.”’

I would prefer to pass these over at the moment, as I in-

tend to refer to them later, and go to the patents in this

major group, the second division, involving the use of non-

chemical! solvents, by which I mean solvents of the type that

take into solution certain materials without undergoing

chemical reaction with those materials. Water would not

be one of these, because water as far as I know dissolves

very little, if anything, in the base of an oil well, or similar

well. If you had a lump of dirt down in there, water would

dissolve the lump, but not in the sense in which I am using

the word; that is, for example, the operation of taking

sugar into solution in water, that is the kind of a solvent

I have in mind here, and that reflects the type of solvents

that are shown in these various patents. They are solvents

that truly dissolve some of the substances in the base of the

well.

The most typical of these I have here is a patent issued

to Edward A. L. Roberts, No. 119,884, dated October 10th,

1817. He sets forth the well known problem that some of

James W. Rebbeck

the others Set forth, that the oil bearing rock becomes grad.

ually chocked up by the accumulation of paraffin and other

substances contained in or deposited by the oil, so that the

yield of wells after a time gradually decreases, and he sug-

gests to employ what is here called benzine as a solvent

for dissolving those deposits. And, of course, that merely

means a distillate from petroleum gasoline.

The Court:

Maybe to somebody else that sounds just as impractical

as the heating method, but to my mind that sounds better.

A. This is much better. I know this type of thing is used

today for the waxy or paraffinic deposits.

The Court:

I think that sounds as if it might be practical for the

thing it is intended fort A. Yes, it is. Coming to the

third group here classified by me as re-pressuring, the first

one I have here is to Mark PD. Mitchell, for oil flushing

system, patent No. 825,745, dated July 10, 1906. According

to this specification, the method embodying the features of

the invention consists in supplying and driving the medium

under pressure to the oil bearing stratum, within an effec-

tive radius or proximity to one or more oil well pockets.

The compressing medium used for this driving effect may

consist of air, gas, or othe: ‘fluid, to which may be imparted

a force sufficient to overcome any laxity in the forceful

operation desired in the pocket or chamber by an extended,

long conveyance to the hole or opening.

That art continued to develop, patents issuing, for ex-

ample, to I. L. Dunn, 1,067,868, dated July 22, 1913, in

which he proposes to pump back into a well a quantity of

gas until he restores the pressure. He proposes to pump

gas back into the formation where it re-dissolves, dissolves

in oil, and then after he has thereby restored the rock pres-

sure, then he will open the well and allow it to produce.

Of course, he would get back some of the gas that had been

pumped in. but after a time the oil would enter the well be-

cause it would be carried through the hole by the gas seek-

ing to escape from the oil in which it had dissolved. This

Se awe SO Ry ar eee

ee Ss eee oy SP a, ee

James W. Rebbeck

one is not the drive type. The drive type I think is the

one that was referred to by Mr. Lewis, wherein the re-

pressuring gas is put inside, put into certain wells, but the

oil is recovered from some other, to which the oil was

driven; but in this instance he puts the gas down the same

well that he iater withdraws the oil from. Now, the pat-

entee states that natural gas may be the pressure medium

employed ‘‘or I may use any other permanent gas which

may be cheaply manufactured but preferably I employ air

which when forced into and through the rock upon its re-

_ turn not only has the effect of driving out the oil but also

absorbs the lighter hydrocarbons to a greater or less ex-

tent thus becoming an inflammable mixture which may be

burned or used for any of the other purposes to which car-

bureted air is put or, if preferred, the gasoline or other

hydrocarbons contained in the air and which are capable

of condensation at ordinary temperatures may be con-

densed, the air thus forming a convenient source of volatile

hydrocarbons.”’

Now, this pressure restoration or injection of either

air or hydrocarbon gas as the case may be, is effected by

large pumps and that is being done on a large scale in many

fields. They use several thousand horsepower of com-

pressors turning gas back into wells to re-pressure pools.

Of course, this process is directed to a single well, but a

whole pool may be re-energized this way. The injection

pressures used may run up to two or three thousand pounds

per square inch, and they use two or three stage com.

pressors to reach that pressure.

Regarding the length of time that will be consumed

in making one of these repressuring operations, the patent

states beginning on the last line, column 2, page 1—‘‘ But

in any event the forcing is ordinarily continued until the

required pressure is attained and may extend over a period

of several weeks, months, or even longer. During this

forcing operation, of course, every effort is made to retain

the pressure and prevent the gas escaping either at any of

the wells or elsewhere.’’

James W. Rebbeck

Mr. Lyon:

Just for the purpose of the record, your Honor, can

the witness identify for us a particular location or particu-

‘lar type of operation as being used such as he has de-

scribed, so we will know what he is talking about? A. I

have reference to some of the recent issues of the Oil and

Gas Journal. In fact, you can find advertisements on these

repressuring pumps in almost every weekly issue that

comes out.

Patent 1,735,646 dated November 12, 1929, issued to

James O. Lewis, is another example of repressuring. The

particular feature of this invention is a method of using air

and natural gas alternately and in such manner as to avoid

the formation of explosive gas mixtures during the injec-

tion.

As to whether that was the Mr. Lewis who was on the

Witness stand, there is no way of telling that from here,

other than the printed matter which appears on the copy.

I will read that. ‘‘ James O. Lewis, of Tulsa, Oklahoma, as-

signor by mesne assignments to Dunn & Lewis of Tulsa,

Oklahoma, a partnership, composed of Ervin L. Dunn and

James O. Lewis.’’

Mr. Owen:

That, I think identifies him, Your Honor, he having

testified as to that firm name.

The Court:

Yes, and that his name was James O. Lewis.

Another patent, issued in this classification is 1,816,260

dated July 28, 1931, to Robert Edward Lee, in which he pro-

poses to drill lateral channels from a well at one level in

the producing formation and then another set of lateral

channels in the same formation at a lower level, and then

inject gas from one set of channels to the other to force the

oil out. And this type of thing continued on until I have

here a patent to Robert FE. Strait of Bartlesville, Oklahoma,

assignor to the Empire Oil & Refining Company, 1978655,

dated October 30, 1934, issued on an application filed No-

vember 27, 1926. That keeps it within the date that you

a —,y ~~ se. “

ye ee Se ae ee ee oe |

rs James W. Rebbeck

have requested, Mr. Owen. This has to do with increasing

the production of hydrocarbons from oil wells in which a

gaseous pressure medium is forced into hydrocarbon-bear-

ing strata penetrated by the wells.

That now brings me to the patents in Class 4 entitled

‘*Flooding.’’ In this connection I might state that I have

very few patents, in fact, I only have three. But it illus-

trates the fact that there are such patents, and, of course,

we know there are such processes. This patent in this class,

which is an indication of the type of thing, is 1,651,311,

dated November 29, 1927, to Howard Atkinson, for recovery

of petroleum from oil bearing sands. With reference to this

invention of his, in connection with oil bearing sands, from

which it may be difficult to extract the oil. He means sands

in the broad sense. It may include acid soluble production

formations, or non-soluble, or both. However, the use of

this type of process has generally been confined to such

formations as are practically not soluble in acid, as the

sandstone comes within the type of porosity enough to

carry out one of these processes, whereas limestones are

like this desk, they are very impervious, they may crack,

but they are not very porous.

Mr. Lyon:

Do you have in mind in that connection the flooding as

they practiced it in Pennsylvania for forty or fifty years,

to increase the production of the wells there? A. That is

the type. This patent is not a very good example of that,

because it relates to improvements in connection with that.

It is not the first or earliest patent on this subject. In the

patentee’s words, he states:

‘‘The object of the invention is to provide a method

whereby oil or petroleum may be extracted with facility and

in profitable quantities from oil wells from which oil has

been extracted until they have ceased to produce oil in what

is generally considered to be profitable quantities, and

especially from oil wells which have become flooded with

water and abandoned, as, for example, so-called edge water

James . Rebbeck

‘‘The present invention provides a method whereby a

large quantity of the oil which will not drain naturally from

the oil bearing sand and hence remains after the extraction

of oil therefrom in the usual way has been completed is re-

covered. It is based upon the discovery that when a mass

of sand wetted with oil or petroleum is at ordinary tem-

peratures submerged in water to which is added any strong

alkali, the oil contained in the sand is within a short time

removed from the sand in a body, leaving the sand prac-

tically clean and free from oil.’’

The Court:

Tell me in your own way how it is that they propose

to get the oil out of this rock. A. They will introduce into

one or more wells this water, and while that is going on

they will pump other wells in the vicinity of the injection

well. They put that water in under pressure, if necessary.

In some instances they let it flow in by gravity from an

upper stratum. The water stratum up above might be

tapped br holes in the casing and let that water run down

and it will enter the oil bearing stratum below and force

the oil into the recovery well which can be collected in this

pool.

Mr. Lyon:

What you eall water drive, isn’t it? A. That is the

common term, yes.

The Court:

They put the water, we will say, into this hole without

pressure, the tendency would be, if nothing happened, for

it to rise to an equal height in some other well that they

pumped the water out of. A. Yes.

The Court:

And the tendency would be that as it picked up the oil

on its way, the oil being lighter would go to the top of that,

I suppose. A. I think that would be a correct theory of

that.

Tke Court:

With some success, possibly.

ae oh ee

ees ee

James W. Rebbeck

Mr. Lyon:

Of which you take judicial notice. It is in the 1880

census. They published an elaborate book or volume of

the 1880 census describing all the methods that the Bureau

of Mines then knew that they were using in the oil industry

in the United States. You find a full account of this water

drive in there.

Mr. Richmond:

The idea is to put in your water over one edge of your

field or whatever you are going to drive for, and drive it

towards your next well, and when the water shows up there

you go ahead and put your water in there and go ahead and

take it out of another well.

The Court:

How far? It wouldn’t exceed a mile, would it?

Mr. Richmond:

I don’t think it would be that far, Your Honor. I don’t

think it would be over a quarter of a mile.

Witness continuing:

I believe we have covered enough as to flooding to, il-

lustrate the type of process that is, and now we come to this

last, second to last group, namely, No. 5, in which I have

put the vacuum type process. I have one patent here illus-

trating that, No. 1,858,847 dated May 17, 1932, to P. L.

Young. He proposes to connect the well casing to vacuum

pumps and at the same time by the injection of a gas down

a tube and through nozzles in the bottom of the hole, to

create suction down there. They are both doné in the same

hole. He is withdrawing a gas from the hole at the same

time that he is using a gas jet pump in the bottom of the

hole. He is producing the maximum possible vacuum at

the bottom of the hole because it is there that he operates

this jet: pump which does the sucking, in addition to the

vacuum pump that is at the top of the well. It aids in get-

ting the most reduction in pressure that he can get in a well

hole.

The Court:

Does it mean, then, that he has a suction at the top and

56 \

Jémes WRetbodk \

there is another suction at the bottom? A. . it

easier for his purpose apparently to do it that wey. But,

he cannot, in any event, secure a greater reduction‘in press-

ure than the lifting off of the atmospheric pressure. All

that anyone can do with a vacuum pump is hold off the at-

mosphere, and that is all he is doing but in a complicated

way.

The Court:

He was figuring, perhaps, that the suction of his pump

at the surface wouldn’t be big enough so that when he got

to the bottom of his well his vacuum wouldn’t be very good.

A. There is something in that, I believe. He states in his

own words that, ‘‘The present method is an improvement

of the processes for obtaining gas and vapors from oil wells

under high vacuum by which higher vacuua may be cb-

tained in an extremely efficient manner directly on the pro-

ducing sands.’’ That is his view of what it is he is trying

to do. However, this patent is illustrative of the fact that

there are patents in this field of vacuum operation of wells.

Then that brings me to a miscellaneous class of more

or less unrelated things that might be done in an oil well in

connection with extracting oil from the ground. The first

one of these is dated 1865, No. 49,922, to Isaac Relf, and it

involves the use of pressure produced by hammer blows of

a piston inserted down the well hole. That was just to com-

press the air, making shots of compressed air at the bottom.

The Court:

Awfully small around the opening. Isn’t that what he

is hoping for? A. That is what he is hoping for. It has

almost a mechanical way of getting the action of an ex-

plosive.

The Court:

In other words, it is different from what you had

before of compressed air? A. Yes.

The Court:

But this is to compress it in shocks? A. That is the’

sort of thing it is.

James W. Rebbeck

The Court:

I should think that would almost come under compres-

sion, that is, air compression, or something— A. Yes, it

could be, although it is a mixture of the mechanical and

80 On.

The Bureau of Mines has put out a publication dealing

entirely with the vacuum operation of wells, and it is a

better publication of that art than one could find in the

patents themselves. I believe the date is about 1930. It

summarizes. the past history, of course. It shows that

vacuum has been used on wells for many vears in different

places, as one of the methods of stimulating the recovery

of oil.

Mr. Owen:

I am now going to make the offer’of the copies of each

of the patents referred to by the witness, merely for the

purpose of illustrating what the witness has testified to,

and for the convenience of the court, if he cares to look at

them. When it comes to an appeal record, I, of course, do

not expect to put them in.

The’ Court:

I will say this about the appeal record, they are not

to be printed in that record.

That would be too expensive, and you ought not to do

it. I have the privilege of looking at these in connection

with this testimony. I doubt if I vill find occasion to do

it, but L have that privilege, and I reserve that same privi-

lege for the Court of Appeals.

The Court:

By the way, which one of these classifications now does

our method here in suit fall into? A. That was under the

solvents, and I excluded that class from my discussion.

I can’t place an exact number on the patents in these

classes. But as I said before I believe my files of patents

relating to the production of oi! by means of wells cover

some two thousand or three thousand patents. Those spe-

cifically directed to methods of treating wells involve some

two hundred patents and, of course, the ones that I selected

James W. Rebbeck

out of that are a smaller number still. But, I did not in-

clude in the patents referred to those involving the use of

chemical! solvents. This will be up to June 30, 1932.

Mr. Lyon:

Are these all the patents there are in the Patent Office

on those subjects, or just the number you happened to have

when you made the estimate? A. Those are all I have

found in connection with my business of locating these

patents.

Mr. Lyon:

Now, similar patents or patents on this same subject

have continued to issue since 1932, have they not? A. Oh,

ves, indeed, and are still being issued today. There has

been an enormous increase in the rate of issuance of pat-

ents since the issue of Patent 1,877,504. That is the Grebe-

Sanford Patent in suit.

Mr. Lyon:

You mean in all of these different fields? A. No, in

the special field of the use of acid in a well.

Mr. Lyon:

But how about these other fields; have the patents con-

tinued? A. They have been coming out, but I don’t believe

that the rate has been anything like—there has been a

growth, of course, but the rate of growth there is nothing

like what it has been in that special art.

Mr. Lyon:

What I am getting at is this: Since 1932 patents have

continued to issue in these classes that you have mentioned

here today, at least as fast a rate as they did before 1932,

and to some extent faster? <A. I think that is correct,

although I haven’t specifically computed those rates.

By Mr. Owen:

Q. Now, will you take up the field of patents in which

solvents of one kind or another are used and whieh I under-

stand you omitted from your previous classification? A.

I omitted the solvents which I have called chemical solvents

wherein the solvent action involves a chemical reaction, too.

(). Will you take up that line of patents and explain

James W. Rebbeck

approximately how many there were prior to 1932, and

what they cover?

The Court:

Does this question apply to just chemical solvents, or

all kinds of solvents?

Mr. Owen: ».

Chemical solvents.

The Court:

That means where there is a chemical reaction?

Mr. Owen:

Yes, Your Honor.

A. * My recollection as to the number is that there are

about ten such U.S. patents. I may be in error by one or

two, but they well—the correction will appear as we go on.

Up to June of 1932, or the filing date of the Grebe-

Sanford patent in suit. The first of—

Mr. Lyon:

(Interposing) Would you give us at the same time the

number that have issued since? A. Yes, I can tell you

approximately. I think there are 71 more issued from the

period of—that is, on applications filed since June 30th,

1932, until some time in 1939, there were about 71 patents

issued on applications filed during that interval, while there

were about ten patents issued on applications filed in all

the previous interval up to that time.

Q. (By Mr. Owen) And what is the distinguishing

feature that applied to those ten patents issued prior to

1932 and those 71 patents which have issued since on appli-

cations filed since 1932? A. T am not sure that I under-

stand the question, Mr. Owen.

Q. Did all of them utilize acid in a well for one pur-

pose or another? A. Yes.

Q. And then, as I understand vou, the number of pat-

ents in which acid was introduced into the oil well, or any

other kind of well, prior to 1932, was ten, and that since

1932, the year when the Grebe-Sanford patent issued, there

have been 71 patents issued in that respect?

60 ;

James W.: Rebbeck

The Court:

Eighty-one; 71 on applications filed since that date,

and ten on applications that had been filed prior to that

date.

Q. (By Mr. Owen) Do you understand? Is _ that

right? A. That is my statement, subject to perhaps the

correction of a few numbers one way or the other.

Mr. Lyon:

Your Honor, can I ask a question? Are you speaking

now of all patents using acids to dissolve formations, or

wax, or some material on the formation, or are you talking

about all patents involving any kind of chemical solvent,

whether it is the acid or not? A. My number I gave was

limited just, subject to correction, to such patents as in-

volved the use of acid in wells for any purpose. They are

limited to acids with or without other things.

Mr. Lyon:

Aren’t there a great many other patents that show one

kind of chemical solvent besides acids for use on a well. A.

Not as far as T am aware.

Mr. Lyon:

Have you looked for them? <A. Yes, sir.

The Court:

Just give one example of what you have in mind?

Mr. Lyon:

Some of these Tretolite patents. Tretolite Company

has a whole line of patents for paraffin removing that are

not alf limited to acids. A. I don’t know of any that are

involving the use of acid in a well.

Mr. Lyon:

That is where I'am mixed up here somewhere. They

have a line of patents on the use of solvents for putting

down wells, have they not, the Tretolite Company? <A. !

am not aware of it, that they have such a line.

Mr. Lyon:

Well, they have. As you say, has your search been

such that it would reveal whether they had any or not? <A.

I believe it would have.

James W. Rebbeck

Mr. Lyon:

Then you say they have not any patents on solvents

for removing paraffin from wells?

Mr. Wiles:

He said chemicals.

The Court:

Chemical solvents? A. I do not know of any.

The Court:

Just call his attention to one.

Mr. Lyon:

I have not got them here. I will have to get them and

give them to Your Honor. There is a whole series of them..

The Court:

Then you find one and bring it here before you get

through with it, and call it particularly to his attention.

Mr. Lyon:

Yes.

Mr. Wiles:

The witness has limited this to chemical attack.

The Court:

That was the reason I did not know but what there was

some misunderstanding.

Mr. Lyon:

I think there is.

The Court:

I think it would be better if we could solve it at an

early time. As quick as you find patent that will illus-

trate what you are asking him about, eail it to our attention 1.

Mr. Lyon: -

Are these chemical solvents limited to those that will

attack paraffin?

Mr. Wiles:

- They will attack something—

Mr. Lyon:

For instance, mud, in a well, a well is muddied up, and

you want to get some of that mud as to open it up so

that it will flow better. They use a chemigal for that.

James W. Rebbeck

Mr. Wiles:

Chemicals that will attack something and make a chem-

ical change.

Mr. Lyon:

Then maybe I have misunderstood you.

The Court:

That is not the chemical solvent, is it? That is what

I was in doubt about. They explanied to me a little while

ago, and IT think IT was asking some questions that if mud

does not enter into a chemical change, but it just entered

into a solution, or whatever you call it, it would be in the

water, and that would suspend—is that right? A. That

is right.

The Court:

That would be anything that would soak mud up, soak

down the lump and let it float around in there, but that

would not be included in the chemical solvent any more

than it would if they put water in there and stirred it up?

Mr. Lyon:

(To the witness): Is that the reason that you elimi-

nated from this class some of these Tretolite patents, or

didn’t: you look at the Tretolite patents? A. TI believe I

have a couple of hundred of Tretolite patents in my collec-

tion, and I looked at them.

Mr. Lyon:

Some of them would have come into this class if it

were not for this feature of solution? A. I can think of

one or two that might have. There is one of the Tretolite

patents—I don’t recall the exact date, whether it is 1931,

perhaps, or 1933, somewhere along in there, which involves

the use of minute amounts of carbon tetrachloride in the

water introduced into the well while it is producing, to pre-

vent the formation of paraffin deposits. But, as far as I

am aware, there are not any Tretolite patents that have to

do with the use of an acid in the well for any purpose, or

that have to do with increasing the production of a well in

any way.

James W. Rebbeck

Mr. Lyon:

Do you happen to remember one, a Roberts patent, on

putting a modified fatty acid down the hole to prevent the

formation of emulsion that would interfere with the pro-

duction of oil? A. I think there are quite a few such pat-

ents. As I understand their disclosures, they have to do

with treating wells that are preducing and while they are

.producing. It has nothing to do with the art that I have

collected here.

Mr. Owen: a

I have a chart, if Your Honor please, prepared by the

witness to illustrate the point that has just been brought

out. It is a little bit out of the order in which I intended to

produce it, but in view of the fact it has now been brought

out, I will have this chart marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9 and

will ask the witness to explain what it shows..

(Marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9.) )

The Court:

I will say this to counsel for Halliburton, any time you

find such a patent I will be glad to stop and let you inter-

rupt to let you show it to the witness and inquire about it,

if you do find it.

A. This chart shows by this scale on the-left the num-

ber of United States patent applications which issued into

patents. The scale along the bottom is the year, cor-

responding to that number. The curve has been plotted

with reference to these two scales, beginning in the year

1865, because that was the first year at which I found an

application issued into a United States patent mentioning

the use of an acid in a well. That was the Sherwood patent,

issued in 1865. Then around this time (indicating) more

patents issued, and as more issued and as time went along,

this curve went up very slowly.

By Mr. Owen:

Q. How many had issued up to 1900, sav? A. By

1900 there had heen 5 patents issued on applications filed

up to that time. Then we come to about what appears to

be 1922 on the chart we perhaps have six or ‘seven patents

te:

‘ 64

James W. Reblieck

issued by that time, six perhaps. The exact number we can

determine by a reference to the issued patents and count-

ing them up. We get along to 1930, there were then 10

issued patents on applications filed up to that time, and

then I believe there were no more issued until the Grebe

and Sanford application was filed and issued. Thereupon

there was an enormous immediate growth in the number of

applications issuing into United States patents, so that by

1939 there were more than 55 patents that had issued on

applications filed up to that time.

The line indicating the issuance of patents involving

the use of acid in a well since 1932 does not include patents

that issued on applications filed by the plaintiff, The Dow

Chemical Company. From this chart have been excluded

the plaintiff’s applications. But in the numbers that I

have previously mentioned in my testimony I have included

all the patents that I know about.

The Court:

You say you excluded applications of The Dow Chemi-

eal Company? I understood this was a chart of patents

issued? A. ‘Yes.

The Court:

Does it include patents issued to Dow? A. Only the

Grebe and Sanford. And this chart shows nothing about

pending applications. These all have become patents. The

chart is according to the dates when the applications were

filed. It is patents issued but it is by filing dates. The

chart does not include any application which is still pend-

ing nor any application which has been rejected and aban-

doned during this period, because my numbers are taken

from issued patents.

The Court:

But you have gone into this and if I were to make an-

other little dotted line here (indicating) that showed the

date patents issued, that would come clear up to today over

into the °41 column, it would be here? A. Yes, sir. As a

matter of fact, the steepness of the curve which shows the

rate of growth might be steeper than this is, because that

James W. Rebbeck

might bring out still more patents pending we don’t know

_ anything about.

By Mr. Owen:

‘| have another chart which I will ask to be marked

Exhibit 10. (Exhibit 10 marked.) This chart wiil be re-

ferred to as Streams of Knowledge Chart. I will ask the

witness to take up, first, the patents which are listed under

the title Stream "B Kuowledge of the Use of Acid in Oil

Wells, in view of the fact we have just been considering

that subject. That is the column on the right of the chart.

A. The first patent in that column is 57,982 dated 1866 and

it is for improved method of removing obstructions from

oil wells. That patent teaches to bring acid into contact

with an obstructing tool which may be in the well hole, for

the purpose of eating away either the tool or the surround-

ing rock, or both.

The Court: |

You can loosen it and get it out? A. Yes, or if you

wish, you may dissolve the tool completely in the well hole.

The corroding and the decomposing action of sulphuric acid

upon iron and steel is well known and it is used in this

process, or any equivalent acid. The acid is brought into

contact with the obstruction by means of a small tube, and

then—or, it may be brought into contact with the obstruc-

tion by means of a glass bottle or cylinder, the bottle being

allowed to strike the obstruction and break, and empty its

acid contents on it, thereby dissolving and making it pos.

sible to remove the tool. The acid is described as hydro-

chloric. That would take care of hydrochloric particularly,

as it has a similar ec: omic status and it is presumed to be

similarly corrosive. It was broad on any kind of acid that

would eat iron.

The Court:

Or any kind of rock? A. Or the rock.

The Court:

So that if they had a rock that some acid was par-

ticularly good for, they could use that kind? A. That is

true. As he states —'The acid will also act upon the rock

James W. Rebbeck

and will decompose portions thereof in which the tool is

wedged and thereby quicken and rendér more easy this

method.’’ He also states in connection with introducing

the acid, a copper barrel may be used to lower the acid to

the obstruction.

The next patent on the list is dated 1873 to Looney,

No. 139,010. His application was filed in 1872, and -he

makes use of an acid in an oil well to generate heat by re-

acting the acid in the well hole with an alkali. Potassium

hydroxide is the alkali, although the patent uses the old

language, a solution of potassa. That substance, of course,

is a solution of potassium hydroxide.

By Mr. Owen:

Q. What does that patent have to say about how the

acid is gotten into the well? A. I don’t recall finding any

special instructions about introducing the acid into the

well. It should be noted, however, that he first places in

the well this alkaline solution, and, of course, that will

neutralize the acid subsequently introduced. That would

not be an inhibitor.

The Court:

What would you say it did? A. It would neutralize

the acid. That is just another way of saying it would react

with the acid and turn it into something else which is not

an acid.

The Court:

The purpose of this, what you have got I see is by that

reaction to produce heat and melt something that they

thought would plug it up somewhere? A. Yes. The

patentee states that his invention relates to cleaning the well

of paraffin and other similar resinous compounds which im-

pede the free flow of oil by means of chemical ingredients,

and it consists of what we have just mentioned. The sole

method of doing it was by the reaction of creating heat and

melting the stuff so that it would—

The Court:

Why wouldn’t it get cold and go back and do the harm

all over again? A. It would. And, he provides for that by

James W. Rebbeck

putting some benzine in afterwards. That keeps the melted

paraffin in solution.

The next patent is dated 1896 issued to John W. Van

Dyke on an application dated 1895, No. 556,651. The Van

Dyke patent relates to a®*method of increasing the flow of

oil wells in limestone formations and that is accomplished

by the introduction of sulphuric acid into the well through

a special pipe, the acid being then forced into the producing

formation where it reacts chemically on rock, producing

other material which is removed by subsequently washing

-out the hole in the formation.

The Court: ° ‘

This is the first one that does—that attempts to do

what our patent in suit does, namely, eating the rock? A.

That is correct. It eats the rock in which the oil is com-

ing to the well; it eats the oil bearing rock.

Q. What does that patent state about the means of

getting the acid down into the well? A. Well, the patent

specification states the following: (reading) ‘‘The follow-

ing is a description of what is considered the best mode of

carrying out the invention, reference being had to the ae-

companying drawings which form part of this specification,

and in which—

‘*Figure 1 is a diagram of a wel! with the supply or

reagent introducing pipe in place.

‘*Figure 2 is a detail view illustrating a mode of pro-

tecting the said pipe; the pipe A is provided with a rubber

packer B in the rock above the Trenton limestone C in which

the well is. It may be enameled or lead lined pipe, ex-

ternally coated with enamel or lead below the packer B, or

it may be otherwise made proof against corrosion. There is

a box D provided with a funnel*shaped bottom to feed the

acid to the pipe A. As shown in Figure 2, the pipe A is

lined with a tube 2, of soft rubber, and covered exteriorly

with another soft rubber tube 3, the lower end of the inner

tube being turned back over the pipe A, and also the outer

tube, and the whole wrapped to prevent ingress of liquid

at the jomt.’’ -

James W. Rebbeck

The Court:.-

Isn’t every body agreed that that patent that he has

just referred to of 1896 is, so far as eating the rock is con-

cerned, exactly like the patent in suit? He had that idea

just as completely as the patent in suit, but when it came

to preventing the misfortune of that acid destroying or eat-

ing the iron of the tools of the well, destroying those, he

had an entirely different scheme of matter, isn’t that true?

Is there any thing wrong with either one of those statements,

that one is exactly alike, and the other is entirely different?

Mr. Owen:

The only addition I would make to your statement is

that in this particular patent, sulphuric acid is used instead

of hydrochloric acid. The next patent used hydrochloric

acid, or is supposed to, but at the same time I want to call

Your Honor’s attention to the fact that although the action

of the hydrochloric acid is the same when it gets into the

formation, it is now known to be the same when it gets into

the formation whether it is uninhibited or inhibited acid,

it was not known at that time, and it was not known at any

time prior to Grebe and Sanford patent that an inhibitor

could be used which would not in some way affect the action

of the acid when it got down into the oil well.

The Court:

Well, I thought that covered my second proposition,

that it was entirely different as to how he was going to—he

didn’t have the idea at all, I thought, of actually protecting

the tools.

Mr. Wiles:

That is right.

By Mr. Owen:

Q. Now, take up the next patent and explain that. A.

The next patent which issued actually concurrently with

the prior numbered patent to Van Dyke is that numbered

556,669 to Herman Frasch who assigned one-half to John >

W. Van Dyke. Van Dyke also assigned one-half of his to

Herman Frasch. And the drawings are signed by Charles

J. Hedrick in both instances.

James W. Rebbeck

Q. And, isn’t it a fact that the drawings are the same

in both instances, and that the specifications are almost

word for word in both instances except the Van Dyke re-

fers to the use of sulphuric acid and the Frasch patent re-

fers to the use of hydrochloric acid? A. That is what I

‘gather from the reading of both these specifications. There

are differences in statement as to the chemical effects pro-

duced by the two acids, of course, because in the Frasch

patent the reaction of acid on the rock is to produce a cal-

cium chloride solution out of the rock, whereas the action

of the Van Dyke patent employing sulphurie acid is to con-

vert the solid limestone into a suspension of calcium sul-

phate which can not be forced out of the rock pores.

By Mr. Owen: _

Q. Now, will you. take up the next patent on that list?

A. There is some of the Frasch specification, perhaps, that

differs from the other that might be included. It states that

after a rest of, say, twelve hours, milk of lime is pumped

down to neutralize any trace of acid that might exist. The

well is then cleaned out and the tubing replaced.

The Court:

That was to check further eating. They had the danger

that might come if it kept on eating and ate out into the

brine, I suppose? A. I presume that is se.

The Court:

Does Frasch also describe protecting his metal in the

same way? A. The description of that is practically iden-

tical with that in the Van Dyke patent, the means of pro-

tection being to employ an enameled, lead-lined or rubber-

covered pipe,

_ The Court:

Aren’t there any acids except sulphuri@ and hydro-

chlorie acid that will do the trick? Aren’t there some other

acids? A. Yes. There are many acids which will form

solutions with caleium carbonate. There are a great many

that will do that. But, as to how many acids there are

which will dissolve oil producing rock is something I am net

prepared to answer.

James W. Rebbeck

The next patent reference on the B side of the chart is

« patent to George L. Ball, numbered 670,577, dated 1901,

the application being filed in 1900. He makes a disclosure

of introducing an acid into a well, and an alkali to react and

produce heat. It is similar to Looney. However, this patent

discloses also that in order to put the acid in you may em-

ploy a dump bailer. The patent states:

‘‘The chemicals may be introduced into the well by

dropping or pouring them therein and, as they are heavier

than the oil, they sink to the bottom of the well, so that the

heat is generated in the cavity where it is required; but the

chemicals, or at least the acids, may be put in an ordinary

bailer, and lowered into the well and then dumped.’’

By Mr. Owen:

Q. Will you explain the operation of these dump bail-

ers to which the patent refers? A. I am not well advised

in dump bailers. However, it is my understanding that it

consists of a length of pipe of such diameter as will enter

the well and be capable of being lowered to the bottom, and

at the lower extremity of the pipe there is some sort of

valve means whereby the contents of the pipe may be

emptied when the lower end of it strikes the bottom of the

well, by a kind of a trip arrangement.

Mr. Lyon:

It is just a bucket that you can drop on the bottom of

the well and it will then empty its contents.

A. (Witness continuing): On the chart there is next

shown a 1923 reference of Mills. It is a Bureau of Mines

report of investigations, Serial Number 2550, to which Mr.

Lewis has made reference in his testimony. It is Exhibit 8.

There is a portion of that report that refers to the use of an

acid in a well, and my recollection of what I heard from

Mr. Lewis is that that portion of this reference has already

been read into the record. On page 9 the use of hydro-

chloric and sulphuric acid both are mentioned. It describes

what we have been finding heretofore in the patents, and in

addition this bulletin of the Bureau of Mines also makes this

statement with regard to sulphuric acid:

ee.

‘ee

James W. Rebbeck

‘*Sulphuric acid should not be used in oil wells because

of the danger of plugging the sands with precipitated sul-

phate salts, more especially calcium and barium sulphate.”’

The next reference is patent 1,410,827 i

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.