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 501 to 988)
Zz
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1944
tig | &.. No. 50
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, PETITIONER,
ts,
°
HALLIBURTON OLL WELL CEMENTING COMPANY
— _
No. 61
HALLIBURTON OfL hab CEMENTING COMPANY,
, PETITIONER,
z
s.
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
N WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT
>
OF APPEALS FOR THE,SIXTH CIRCUIT
as om pone * (APRIL 6, 1944.
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI FILED ) y pry 15, 1944,
CERTIORARI GRANTED MAY 15, 1944.
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 II—Pages 501 to 988
WILser OWEN,
1601 Nicholas Building, Toledo, Ohio,
Carvin A. CAMPBELL,
The. Dow Chemical Company,
Midland, Michigan,
Russet, WILEs,
Board of Trade Bldg., Chicago, Illinois,
Donato L. Conner,
The Dow Chemical Company,
Midland, Michigan,
Attorneys for Petition?r.
Kart Bascock,
Dunean, Oklahoma,
Lzonarp S. Lyon,
811 West 7th Street,
Los Angeles, California,
Attorneys for Respondent.
IN THE
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Tue Dow CuemicaL Company, a CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
Hauursurton Or. Weitit Cementinc Company,
A CORPORATION, Defendant-A ppellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division
Catvin A. CAMPBELL,
The Dow Chemical Company,
Midland, Michigan,
Attorney for Plaintiff.
Wiiser Owen,
1601 Nic..olas Building, Toledo, Ohio,
Russet, WIzés,
Board of Trade 8ldg., Chicago, Illinois,
Downavcp L. Conner,
The Dow Chemical Company,
Midland, Michigan,
Of Counsel fer Plaintiff.
Earv Bascock,
Duncan, Oklahoma,
Attorney for Defendant.
Lzonarp S. Lyon,
811 West 7th Street,
Los Angeles, California,
Of Counsel for Defendant.
ili
INDEX TO VOLUMES I, Il AND III
Pages
CGS. ese cen ceeikebanesecd ces ee Pee rr ee 2,3
Amended Answer of WIIIIN 6 5.6 < sins eNeheneiwnancankec 4-12
PIII 5s cu Carers old cad Gud codnunyt nb o& ne ee caus 13
Stipulation re Previous Litigation idpesaenykesumereneeeuees 13, 14
I ied Cena Side Wcdn a wnnaes oes 1403, 1408, 1425, 1434
Proceedings on Settlement of Findings of Fact............. 1435-1477
Findings Bk OPER ETO Cee re eae! 1478-1491
Cen OU FEINW 5 conc ck ac cces cones sSeae cleus sekdearo 1492
SE ROTTS RENE Ay PEE Beare Nn HEE Ve ae RNa Ie gt 1492-1493
de PR pn ee) ene Pete eater TEC 1494
een UN ROS ol yc. vida Wied dhe cows veeneub beads 1494-1495
Stipulation Extending MN, cant ivecacas serie tesutitOree 1496
Statement of Points on Which Appellant Will Rely......... 1497-1500
Stipulation Approving Printed Record on Appeal........... 2048
Prima Facte WITNEsSES
Direct Cress Redirect — Recross
500
PROCEEDINGS IN UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS—SIXTH CIRCUIT 159
PAGB
Entry—Cause Argued and Submitted.............. 2061
SL wn vn acces pt daveces SVACRheMane Seer eeent@ es 2051 =
NI. ova vcs Ko Wek nd'y xo ye trsnxerncensnheass heres 2052
Patitien for TeOATU, bc cc cgececscccsrscvnseye 2061
Order Denying Petition for Rehearing.............. 2077
Cate Ce os eek va bA a eRe ken 2077 ee
Orders allowing certiorari 2078 a
neopeb H. C. (Stipulation).... 235-239 a
Nicholas, Carl A..........-... 263 283 283
Pe nhaligen, Chas. ............ 160 163
3. & §§ eee 501 614 794,837 833,843
Putnam, Sherman W.......... 143 150
Rebbeck, James W............ 43 96
yet Se 286 295 300 300
Steelman, SSS a Hees 301 304
Verser, Joe Kinnard.......... 258
iv
DEFENSE WITNESSES
Cross
1063
947
1048
1034
1606
997
1028
1122
1069
Cross
1291
1213
1182
1307
1413
1151
1338
1278
Direct
Es cick eeeaccan ees 1061
OCatiey, Bovert T......cccseses 1053
ES SEE riesgo sertcveveces 896
ee ce baa eed 1040
i soo cnc cue suuees 853
as cad cine bbe ws 1075
Knappen, ey 1077
(Stipulation)
Knappen, Russell S............ 1090
McKain, Bessie G............. 1054
Neuhauer, John J............. 1057
Nichols, Howard M............ 1030
EL Se 1002
Spruance, Frank Palin.... ... 989
Thomas, William A............ 1010
Wescott, Blaine B............. 1110
MR re se va enedeas 1065
\ ——s
Nag a
ResuttaL WITNESSES
Direct
Alquist, Francis N............ 1359
Blum, Edward D. (Stipulation).1161
Crampton, Fred .............. 1290
Dougherty, Chas. I............ 1195
Og SAAR ae 1166
| SEER eee 1300
Luman, Edw. D. (Stipulation) .1156
Poffenberger, Ira N........... 1499
PN, COE Macc ace wcesedvs 1130
Rebbeck, James W............ 1320
Sprenger, Walter ............ 1256
Staggs, Horace M............. 1158
(Stipulation)
ee, MN oss ks coc wee 1298
Wevgandt, Arthur S..........1201
Wolmer, Clifford F............ 1295
Redirect
1051
1089, 1090
1109
1039
1007
1001
1074
Redirect
1250
1194
1314
~ 1418
1357
1289
Recross
Recross
1254
Vv
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
PLAINTIFF’s ExHIBITs
Exhibit Pages
Number Identified Printed
1 Grebe-Sanford patent in suit 1,877,504 15 1501
2 Grebe patent 1,916,122.............. 15 1504
3 Grebe- mae | patent 1,998,756...... 15 1509
4 Chamberlain patent 2,024, Wo ses 15 1512
7 Bureau of Mines Bulletin 148........ 29 Vol. 1, 29
9 Chart of patent apy lications involving
use of acid in wells, filed from 1866
“8 Pr ea sent pee 63 1515
914 Revision of Exhibit 9............... 80 1516
10 Chart entitled, ‘‘Streams of Knowl-
EEE OP CE TSE ree yer ee 65 1517
10% Prior Art’Patents and Publications. . 1518-88
Sherwood Eee ae ee 65 1518
Roberts EES ieee 46 1521
Dickey vce ekcacas 47 1525
Roberts CE ks oc i pacee 49 1528
Looney I os ccs 66 1530
Aiken NR 86 1531
Ball CE his ee 40h 60 70 1533
Mitchell ae ay oe 50 1537
Dunn SE orcs en cav os 5 1541
Muehl SS ee 71 1546
Lake etal. 1,406,045............ 7 1549
Tilton I i v6.0.0 6 05 80 74 1552
Atkinson !: 53 1558
Ranney et al. 1,806,499............ 75 1565
Bowman So Serer 77 1570
Young oe a Jee 5D 1575
British Patent 158,768............ 94 1578
Millon article (1845)... .......... 83 1581
Conroy article (1901)...%......... 87 1584
Wwetts artesee (TPES)... ccc ccccces 89 1587
Corbett article (1918)............. 93 1588
12 Summary of Dow Shipments of acid
with inhibitors February 11 to Novem-
13 Letters, dated June 13, 1932, to Jan-
uary 19, 1933, from oil industry i inquir-
ing about new Dow process of acid
treatments for oil wells.............. 148 1597-1625
14 Item in Midland paper regarding new
Dow well treating process, dated June
ee oe Me 1626
All exhibits are printed in Volume IV are se indicated.
68
vi
PLaINTIFF’s ExHIBITs
Pages
Identified Printed
First invoice of defendant for acidiz-
ing well, dated March 11, 1935........ 248 1627
Second invoice of defendant for acidiz-
ing well, dated May 25, 1935......... 248 1628
Third invoice of defendant for acidiz-
ing well, dated May 25, 1935......... 248 1628
Purehase order from Erle P. Hallibur-
ton, Ine., dated 5/21/34, for acid treat-
ment of well by Dowell, Inc........... 250 1629
Ditto, dated October 24, 1934........ 250 1630
Bulk material sales receipt for 1,000
gal. Dowell X acid delivered by Dowell
Ine., to Erle P. Halliburton, Inc., dated
Pe Or I hos Sie vi 3 cb eieens 250 1631
Agreement dated March 15, 1934, for
acidizing two wells by Dowell, Inc.,
for Gteen Drilling, Ine....< ce ccecce 251 1632
Agreement dated April 20, 1934, for
avidizing ten wells by Doweil, Inc., for
Steen Drilling, Inc., or Erle P. Halli-
SN SU Sas chao eaudcs oe cers 251 1635
Order froma Steen Drilling, Inc., dated
3/15/34, for acid treatment by Dowell,
NIE Ee a Grn rn i Oe Bally 254 1639
een My A ee Pam a 254 1639
oe Ee | SRR eae 254 1640
Purchase order from Erle P. Hallibur-
ton, Ine., dated 5/9/34, for 2,000 gal.
acid job by Dowell, Inc............... 254 1640
Receipt, dated 7/10/34, for well treat-
ment performed by Dowell, Ine., for
Erle P. Halliburton, Ine............. 254 1641
ee SN 254 1642
Betem, cmted GPIG/OE. . os. ccc ccc ce. 2% 1643
Ditto, dated 9/16/34................ 254 1644 —
Purchase order from Steen Drilling,
Inc., dated 9/16/34, for 1,500 gal. acid
Pe a Se Re te eal gs < 254 1645
Receipt, dated 10/24/34, for well treat- %
ment performed by Dowell, Inc., for
Erle P. Halliburton, Ine............. 254 1646
Ditto, dated 11/14/34............... 254 1647
i ey By. fe) 254 1648
Stipulation re testimony of RE.
ERD ay ee o 213 Vol. I, 213
Stipulation re testimony of H. C. Mil-
Ms Geral or aad sey ee 235 Vol. i, 235
All exhibits are printed in Volume IV unless otherwise indicated.
Exhibit
Number
154
155
156
157
158
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 10, 1932,
to 1940, inclusive. (See also Plain-
le I UD ss ssa ccesas dass ces 161
Well completion data Greendale
(Michigan) oi) field................. 168
Carnegie Library Card cataloging
available issues of Oil City Derrick. ..1194A
Item in Oil City Derrick for October
28, 1895, reporting acid treatment of
wells by Frasch and Van Dyke....... 1194A
Ditto, for November 9, 1895......... 1194A
Ditto, for January 15, 1896.......... 1194A
Ditto, for February 20, 1896......... 1194A
Ditto, for February 22, 1896......... 1194A
Ditto, for March 26, 1896........:>...1194A
Ditto, for August 10, 1897........... 1194A
Stipulation re Williams Bros. record.. 13
Gypsy Oil Company correspondence
and reports re removal of ‘‘Gyp’’ seale
and prevention of formation of ‘‘Gyp’’
in oil wells of the Glenpool, Okla.,
WE 3559.00. neue buen cue ae eees c. 1087
Bartell Table showing results of cor-
rosion tests with defendant’s truck
(treating) acids on strap iron test
UNE sok awe Sats a ec ho eee kek we 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
Ditto, showing 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. ... 345
Ditto, showing results on test pieces
of oil well pipe from National Supply
RO Pee eees xe VeeR tie oko e eas 345
1649
1651-54
1655
Vol. I, 168
1656
1656
1657
1658
1659
1661
1661
1663
Vol. 1,13
1664-1704
1705
1710
All exhibits are printed in Volume TV urless otherwise indicated.
viii
PLAINTIFF’s EXHIBITS
Exhibit Pages
Number Identified Printed
160 Bartell Table showing analyses of de-
fendant’s truck (treating) acid sam-
Ns h wn ere ruek dees Wed exci cke yes 376 1711
161 Bartell Table showing analyses of acid
samples taken from defendant’s stor-
OE I gees oie Eke 378 1712
162 Bartel! Table showing analyses of acid
samples taken from defendant’s stor-
age tanks and diluted to strength of
defendant’s truck (treating) acid sam-
DIO ao tana pe nae eee Ch aha hed eae 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-
DAP a) Aico ee cena 380 1713
164 Bartell Table showing content of cop-
per, lead and iron in acid used by de-
fendant in treating Stella Wileox
well, and same as to acid from defend-
SE Ce I 5 wh ks Cac bnckccn. 383 1714
165 Bartell Table showing content of cop-
per, lead and iron in acid used by de-
fendant in treating Crawford well, and
same as to acid from defendant’s stor-
ERR RR ale ete eg eee 384 1715
166 Bartell Table showing results of cor-
rosion tests using ¢. p. (chemically
pure) hydrochloric acid solution con- -
taining different amounts of copper,
Me MP a cece us| 304 1716
167 Bartell Table showing effect of agita-
tion and increased quantity of acid on
corrosiveness of acid solutions con-
taining different amounts of copper,
WE IE IE gays re cote Lanccci. 407 1719
149 Bartell Table showing amounts of cop-
per, lead and iron in defendant’s truck
(treating) tank acids and storage tank
SR RL CUO ERE RS 9% Feit I, 7 Sacer 424 1720
170 Bartell’s chart showing effect of add-
ing copper, lead and iron to 15.1% e. p.
WYGROUNNOWEC OOM. o5 5c Avi vec cccccs 428 1721
All exhibits are printed in Volume IV unless otherwise indicated.
173A
173B
173C
173D
176
Ww.
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
ix
PuarntirF’s ExHIsBITs
Pages
Identified Printed
Bartell Table showing percentage re-
duction in corrosiveness of hydro-
chlorice acid resulting from addition of
different inhibitors named in Grebe-
GONE POO onc cccscassccecenssss
Data showing dates when samples of
defendant’s treating and storage acids
were taken by plaintiff and dates of
receipt of acid by defendant.........
Prutton Table showing results of
small seale tests of corrosiveness of
hydrochloric acid containing different
amounts of iron, lead and copper.....
Table comparing results of some of
tests shown in Exhibit 173A.........
Rh ES DORE ery oe eee eee Pee ge
Ditto, and description of tests, mate-
rials and equipment used and explana-
i nce tia ca egw w 6
Prutton Table showing amount of iron
dissolved from Series 1 oil well tub-
ing in large scale Run 1A using 15%
I vob veeve sashes ees
eg) Fe eye rer Te
Ditto re Run 2A using Series 2 tubing
Ditto re Run 2C using Series 2 tubing
Ditto re Rnn 1B using Series 1 tubing
and 15% commercial HCl containing
small amounts of copper, lead and iron
GERRI era a py Reaiaran or MRAP
Ditto re Run 2B. Similar to Run 1B,
but with Series 2 tubing.............
Ditto re Run 2D. Similar to Run 2B,
but with different amounts pf copper,
Se I lao on a dade cadcakneedes
- Ditto re Run 2E. Similar to Run 2B,
but with different amounts of copper,
ee Oa ite Seman) ey aime f
Prutten’s -sdmmary and conclusions
with respect to runs in Exhibits ,176-
ar te, rte A pa
-Prutton Tables showing: results of
Runs 1M, 1N, 2M and 2N, using com-
mercial acid from special tank embody-
ing features of defendant’s truck tanks !
Sketch showing equipment used in
Runs 1M, 1N, 2M and 2N........... f
494
516
516
516
516
508
515
515
515
1723
1724
1728-33
1742-45
1746-49
1751
All exhibits are printed in Volume TV unless otherwise indicated.
Exhibit
Number
186
187
188
189
192
195
196
199
200,
aa
202
03
204
205
216
218A-218D
219, 220
WIR
931 A-221,J
939 —
233
x
PuaIntTiFF’s ExHIsits
Defendant’s booklet re Howco method 587
Prutton graph showing results of runs
ie ee 602
Prutton graph comparing results of
Runs 1M, IN. 2M and 2N (Exhibit
185) with average of Runs 1A, 1AA,
2A and 2C (Exhibits 176°179)........ 604
Prutton graph showing results of tests
of 15% e¢. p. hydrochloric acid with
different added amounts of copper,
SE Gy ION 5 vase caee cede peneews xs 605
History of oil development in lime-
stone fields prior to 1932 and history _
of acidizing in those fields beginning —
in 1932, prepared by the witness Fitz- ~
eee Nea cePees canes ene ys 178
Item from Montana Oil & Mining
Journal for January 26, 1935, report-
ing increase of production in Pondera
“
Pages
Identified Printed
Vol. II, 587
1752
1753
1754
1755-70
(Montana) field, due to acidizing..... 186 1770
Bulletin of Montana Oil Conservation
| ROPE ART il OREO, ES aa tae ena 189
' Letter, Grasselji to Oil Makers, 10-14-
»)
ine ote Pen ea baled une e eal itect 1174
Letter, Grasselli to Oil. Makers, 11-1-
SR aie eter eerie Ott rege bag he I 1175
Letter, Grasselli to Oil Makers, 1-26-
BS cans Sear can ge ren ete ety eoe Meee Os 1176
Letter, Grasselli to Oil Makers, 9-15-
te rate er On as eed fin Ja 1179
Letter, Oil Makers to Grasselli, 10-8-
Vol. I, 187
Vol. TTT, 1172
Vol. TIT, 1174
Vol. TIT, 1175
Vol. IIT, 1178
Vol. ITT, 1179
EN a ae ee Pane 1179 ‘Vol. ITT, 1180
Oil Makers checks to Penn. Salt Co.. .1196
Letter, Lee to Oil Makers, 2-7-33..... 12438
Pages from notebook kept by the wit-
RE IN oar oa 5Gh Putin nies 1257
Photograph of standing valve and
co OE Re en hae 1268
Letter, Prutton to Rebbeck, 1-28-41... 799
Dew Company’s records of shipments
of acid to Pure Oil Company during
period from Febrnary to May, inclu-
UNS oa ween week Lipstik os 140
Table supplementing Exhibit 94...... 845
Summary of well treatments made by
licensees of Dow other than Dowell... 845
Vel. Tif, 1196
Vol. IIT, 1242
All exhibits are printed in Volume TV unless otherwise indicated.
f
Exhibit
Number
234
305
328
329
330
331
337
348
344
347
348
xi
PuaInTIFF’s EXHIBITS
Sketch and data prepared by Dr.
Prutton showing rates of attack on oil
well tubing of 15% ec. p. hydrochloric
acid and of 15% synthetic defendant’s
SRR I Eee a renee 840
Dowell advertisement in Petroleum
World, September, 1938............. 846
Ditto for January, 1939............. 847
Dowell, Inc., Service Price Schedule
Be PN ys snd oe dade am Ws 0 oe ok ee 852
Record of shipments of hydrochloric
acid and arsenic inhibiter by Dow
Company for period January to June;
Be PIN ic eh ae a 121
Affidavit of Robert Quinlan on the
first treatment of a Pure Oil Company
well with inhibited hydrochloric acid. .1028
Table showing results of acid treat-
ments of gas wells by Dowell, Ine.,
prepared by the witness Lyons....... 191
Ditto, showing additional treatments
TS 8 RETA oe ne ee ere 193
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
Data showing average time acid was
in tubing in making the 122 treatments
itemized in Exhibit 330.............. 197
Chart showing combinations possible
under claims of Gravell Patent
ton EIRP eae, Se a tena mee 1320
Alquist Table shewing rate of corro-
sion of mild steel im various concen-
trations of hydrochloric acid......... 1365
Charts forming part of Exhibit 343. ..1365
Alquist Table showing acceleration of
the rate of corrosion of hydrochloric
acid containing an acid regulator
cansed by the addition of tin, cobalt
OE oi dae a i rer a he ce 1370
Chart forming part of Exhibit 344... .1370
Table supplementing Plaintiff’s Ex-
I ae cee ee nT a 1404
Table showing treatments by Dow
licensees other than Dowell.......... 1404
Pages
Identified Printed
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1796
1t97
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802-03
1804
1805
1806
1807
All exhibits are printed in Volume TV unless otherwise indicated. —
Exhibit
Number
366
xii
PLaIntTiIFF’s Exuisits
P
at oes
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
RU, Cruces saa oe cau teasbees 1405
Graph illustrating data in Exhibit
GE Sc rise Caen aha eaearewcten ees 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)
acids
Dowell advertisirg data for years 1932
to 1934
Photograph of one-half gallon con-
tainer used in Alquist’s tests, and
table and graphs showing results of
ME ich een eh nadakesewirecesdexes 1376
‘Photographs of 10-galion drum and of
equipment used by Alquist in making
tests, and tables and graphs showing
IE Ar I Es hn so cos cdecuccse 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
EEG AE OE aren et nee, Oar pe ne 1398
Bartell Table showing summary of
corrosion tests of various commercial
hydrochloric acids of 15.1% strength. . 499
Table showing Dowell advertising 1932
Oh ee ING On ws cen ceekecces 1408
Poffenherger’s report on acid treat-
ment of Dow Company’s brine well
No. 77
Poffenber
ment of
No. 80
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
r’s report on acid treat-
w Company’s brine well
1808
1805
1810
1811-24
1825
1827-29
1830-40
1841-46
1847 ©
1848
1849-53
1855
ay
1857-64
All exhibits are printed in Volume IV unless otherwise indicated.
Number
Exhibit
367
368
370
104
105
xili
PLaINTiFF’s EXHIBITs
Identified Printed
Carr and Humphrey patent applica-
tion on chemical reagent for use in
aa aat wa ptine s e's 1428
Carr and Humphrey patent applica-
tion for method for introducing acid
reagents into oil wells by gas pres-
ER Oe ee Oe: ae 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
ee I A CR ac va nd ed Sew 6 5 1428
DEFENDANT’s EXHIBITS
Excerpts from article by R. Van A.
Mills, dated December, 1923, entitled
‘*fhe 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,
SE. tas us agen swans sours eae 1033
Telegram, J. C. Donnell to Van Dyke,
dated November 25, 1895............
Telegram, Harper to Van Dyke, dated
a 1 eS eee
Letter, The Grasselli Chemical Com-
any to Van Dyke, dated July 26, 1895
tter, Herman (Frasch) to Van
Dyke, dated September 22, 1895......
Letter, Harper to Van Dyke, dated
ere 1033
Letter. Harper to Van Dyke, dated
i 2 See 1047
Letter, Ohio Rubber Company to Solar 4
Refining Co., dated September £1,
es coe cea sia Mis 6s sir a0 sole 1047
Letter, Ohio Rubber Company to Solar
Refining Co., dated September 25,
SS OC ee ear ee
Memo re Crossley Well No. 3 of Ohio
aR eta GR ee pe en 1047
Pages
1864-68
1868-72
_
1873-77
1877-82
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
All exhibits are printed in Volume TV unless otherwise indicated.
xiv
DEFENDANT’sS EXHIBITS
Exhibit Pages -
Number Identified Printed
108 Letter, Harper to Van Dyke, dated
See ye 1047 1895
109 Correspondence between Lufkin, Van
Dyke and Donnell re acid treatments
(July, 1895, and February, 1896)... . 1047 1896
110 Letter, Lufkin te Van Dyke, dated
Ee A ns cave phe heen nam nek 1900
111 Letter, Harper to Van Dyke, dated
PPOOUIOE BBN. occ bcawtncwce ... 1047 1902
112 Letter, Grasselli Chemieal Company to
Van Dyke, dated November 21, 1895... 1903 :
113 Letter, Van Dyke to Grassel!i Chemi-
cal Co., dated November 20, 1895... o. 1904
114 Meme dated November 21, 1895...... 1905
115 Letter, Frasch to Van Dyke, undated. 1905
132 Letter, Grasselli Chemical Co. to Van
Dvke, dated July 19, 1895. ........... 1906
138 Letter, Lutkin to Van Dyke, dated Au-
ee ee. a aah a Ree awe eee bee 1907
151 Report on scale formation in wells by ,
Ree eee 1081 1908-2]
152 Report by F. W. Karl, dated February
1, 1929, re treatment of William
Borryni Well No. &........ccsecsces 1087 1922
3 Same as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 153. ..... 1087 1664-1704
191 CAPGROT UGNGES . 6 nc oo ci ccsesewueie 790 = Voi. I, 752
21 Letter, Robinson to Prutton, 9-12-39.. 769 — Vol. IT, 769
292 Letter, Rebbeck to Prutton, 1-24-41.. 771 Vol. il, 772
233 Letter, Prutton to Rebbeck, 2-15-41.. 774 Vol. IT, 775
294 Letter, Rebbeck to Prutton, 7-10-41.. 791 Vol. II, 791
225 Letter, Rebbeck to Prutton, 7-9-41... 792 | Vol. iI, 791
2°6 Letter, Rebbeck to Prutton, 7-9-41... 792 Vol. IT, 793
227 Letter, Rebbeek to Prutton, 7-11-41.. 792 Vol. IT, 793
PRN) Hathorn’s chart re tests on hard steel
OR OU RR AR Beet Geli ece pry aN et nae oy 54 1924
28] Hathorn’s chart re tests on hard steel
ae me epee ai gh ie Tea iter pe ak ert ea 854 1925
282 Hathorn’s chart re tests on hard steel
|g SS CEPR SelB Sey ol MA ae SRO 854 1926
285 Hathorn’s chart re tests on soft steel
NE kt i cass ron ae 854 1927
O84 Hathorn’s chart re tests on soft steel
SRM tcc wate cere tS et aN 854 1928
O85 Hathorn’s chart re tests on hard steel
A chat c dacs ant hioonese<e ae 1999
286 Hathorn’s chart re tests on soft steel
WO WP Re ce cca coc cuiiecesecowets 854 1930
All exhibits are printed in Volume TV unless otherwise indicated.
xv
DEFENDANT’s EXHIBITS
Exhibit Pages
Number Identified Printed
287 Index for Hathorn’s corrosion experi-
SONS inns pd kcaheevenekeoeannre ones 855 1931
288 Photograph of Hathorn’s hard steel
GRE Gs Nig sO paveseeaneuns ean coes 855 1932
289 Photograph of Hathorn’s soft steel
RN Be ni eens sh chscnenicecerceeks 855 1933
294 i, 2 ee ere ee 912 1935-88
OE HIE iw avectcvccvdexsescte SO 1935
RENEE TIPE occvcccvcbeeoeces 913 1939
ED ccc cuweueWeenous 915 1941
CIEE DOE x vce bbs a cnedesees 1943
pO re rer 916 1945
CURUOT CITGO TIO 6 vacicccsccaees 95, 897 1947
Gravell and Douty 1,678,776....... 1950
Pisoner et al. 1,736,202. .....cccees 917 1954
SEN ECR ty hc oo sade cs ane 918 1957
| ro 920 1961
Vignos 1,750,651 .............005. 920 1964
Harrison 1,766,902 ........... —.. we 1968
Corson et al. 1,773,953...........; 921 1971
Lawrence 1,780,594 ............... 922 1974
Lawrence 1,780,595 ............0-. 1976
Ce SPE Sys vewee vans saees 923 1978
eh a er ee 923 1980
Ce Cy oa wee seen ss 923 = 1985
Ct a EE er er ce ae ee 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,
BE Ses bxcciwhes ceRe cee oee 1016 1998-99
303 Memorandum of conversation with
John J. Grebe, dated December 8,
304 Preliminary draft of patent applica-
tion of John J. Grebe, dated June 7,
MR tac ecccussncxtreeepar eaten 1025 2002-09
312 File history of Grebe and Sanford pat-
GR SCG 0.6 66S bao ccd eeree menses 2010-46
314 Conception data sheet signed by John
J. Grebe July 2, 1932............002 2047
All exhibits are printed in Volume IV unless otherwise indicated. _
501
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
DR. CARL F. PRUTTON,
a witness called on behalf of Plaintiff, testified as follows:
- DIRECT EXAMINATION
My name is Carl F. Prutton. My residence is 2217
South Overlook Road, Cleveland Heights, Ohio. My occu-
pation i is professor in charge of the chemistry and chemical
engineering department, at Case School of Applied Science,
in Cleveland, Ohio.
As to my education, I received the Bachelor of Science
degree, the Master of Science degree, and Doctor of Phil-
osophy. My experience in chemical matters has been con-
nected with both my educational training and industrial
experience as a consultant for many concerns. I have been
connected with Case for twenty-one years. Electrochem-
istry is one of the subjects that I have taught for many
years.
By Mr. Owen:
Q. Have you conducted any experiments with a view
to ascertaining what effect the presence of small amounts
of copper, lead and iron in hydrochloric acid solutions has
on the corrosive effect of the acid on iron or steel? A. I
conducted two sets of tests, to determine the effect of
copper, lead and iron in hydrochloric acid solutions, upon
oil well tubing. The first set of tests was conducted upon
a small] laboratory scale; the second series of tests was
conducted on a large piping set up, in which large volumes
of prepared acids were run through the system. The tests
were conducted in the laboratories of the Case School of
Applied Science during the last two years, or two and a
half years.
The small scale tests wefe performed in the following
manner: One inch sections of 14% inch type C oil well tub-
ing were cleaned under an exact procedure of cleaning, fol-
lowing the following steps: First, the small sections of
02
Dr. Carl F. Pruttos
tubing were washed thoroughly with a fifty-fifty mixture of
benzene and acetone. Second, immersed in 15 per cent c.c.
hydrochloric acid for one hour. Third, rinsed thoroughly
in water. Fourth, dried in an oven at 105 degrees Centi-
grade for one or two minutes, simply to remove the
moisture.
The ends of the samples were then carefully faced off
in a lathe. The handling of the sample in that operation
was done avoiding any contact of extraneous material,
handling with metallic tongs, and there was no oil used in
the cutting operation. In this manner an exact length of
oil well tubing could be obtained.
The sixth step was to brush the inside surface of the
tubing with a hardened steel wire brush, known as a flue
cleaning brush, which removed any loose particles of metal
from the inner surface of the sample. The outside of the
sample was burnished on a clean wire burnishing wheel, to
remove any loose particles. The seventh step was, the
sample was then rinsed in acetone, and then dried in an
oven at 105 degrees Centigrade for about one minute, and
then cooled in a dessicator, and weighed.
The test procedure was to take these small sections of
oil well tubing which had been cleaned in the manner that I
just described, and suspended them after, of course de-
termining their initial weight, suspended them in a two
liter bottle by means of a glass hook coming through the
top of the bottle in the middle of the sample of acid on
which the corrosiveness was to be determined. 1360 c.c. of
acid were placed in the bottle. The bottle was immersed
in a constant temperature bath at 30° C. and when the
acid in the bottle had reached the 30° C. temperature the
steel sample was then inserted and the test was started.
The sample was removed at the end of the three-hour
period, was washed with water, then with acetone, and then
quickly dried and final weight of the sample determined.
The loss in weight from the specimen was then calculated
by subtracting the two weights—the difference between the
initial and the final weights.
903
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
The results of these tests were reported in two figures.
First, the grams of steel dissolved per square meter of area
of the sample per hour of acid contact; and secondly in
terms of the percentage reduction in corrosiveness when a
~given sample of acid was compared with chemically pure
acid, exactly in the same manner calculation that Dr. Bar-
‘tell used in expressing his results.
Q. What acids did you use in these small scale tests?
A. The acids that were used in the small scale tests, first,
a determination was made upon chemically pure acid which
was diluted to 15% concentration and, of course, the results
of that test expressed onthe basis of percentage reduced
corrosiveness would be zero because it was the blank run.
Samples were then prepared from 15% chemically pure
-acid, which contained various amounts of copper chloride,
of lead chloride, and of iron chloride. The chemically pure
salts were dissolved in the acid in definite proportions to
give a range of compositions that covered the range of
compositions reported to us as having been found by Dr.
Bartell in his analyses of the defendant’s samples obtained
in the acidizing of oil wells.
The second test following the blank, the acid contained
15% hydrochloric acid, 473 parts per million of iron in
the form of iron chloride, 242 parts per million of lead, and
2.14 parts per million of copper. The percentage reduction
in corrosiveness of that acid as compared with the C. P.
was 59.7.
The third sample, 15% hydrochloric acid contained 473
parts per million of iron, 242 parts per million of lead, and
3.72 parts per million of copper. The percentage reduc-
tion in corrosiveness of that acid as compared with the C. P.
was 70.
The fourth sample contained 15% hydrochloric acid,
again 473 parts per million of iron, 510 parts per million
of lead, and 1.86 parts per million of copper. Percentage
of reduction in corrosiveness as compared with the C. P.
acid was 62.8.
The fifth sample contained 15% hydrochloric acid, by
U4
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
weight 473 parts per million of iron, 510 parts per million
of lead, and 4.18 parts per million of copper. The reduc-
tion in percentage of corrosiveness was 71.4.
The sixth sample containing 1430 parts per million of
iron, 204 p@rts per million of lead, and 1.86 parts per mil-
lion. of copper, the percentage reduction in corrosiveness
was 61.1.
The seventh sample, 15 per cent HCl, 1440 parts per
million of iron, 530 parts per million of lead, and 3.44 parts
per million of copper, 70.5 per cent reduction in corrosive-
ness.
The samples were all run in duplicate and the indi-
vidual determinations did not vary over one per cent from
each other, and the average is reported.
The conclusions from these tests are that copper chlor-
ide and lead chloride and iron chloride in the compositions
such as reported to me as having been found by Dr. Bartell
in the defendant’s acids, reduce greatly the corrosive effect
of the acid upun oil well tubing, and the reduction is around
70 per cent in this laboratory test. We have made some
other tests in which the proportions have been varied some-
what from these figures, but the percentage of inhibition
does not change greatly from these..
Q. Well, then, wil! you compare the results of the dif-
ferent tests you have made, six in number, as compared
ith the C. P. hydrochloric acid blank, and explain how the
effect of varying the amounts or the proportions of iron,
lead and copper have affected the corrosiveness of the solu-
tion? A. Well, these results would indicate quite definitely
that iron has practically a negligible effect in the concen-
trations that were used here, and if vou will look at Test 2,
in which 473 parts per million of iron were used and about
240 of lead and a little over 2 of copper, it was 59.7% re-
duced in corrosiveness. And when the iron was stepped up
in Test 6, to 1430 parts per million and the lead was about
the same, 204 instead of 242, and the copper was around 2
parts per million, the percentage corrosiveness reduced was
61.1, or substantially the same. In other words, the iron,
‘y
005
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
variation in iron concentration over this range of about 470.
parts per million to over 1400, the iron has pracf.cally no
effect upon the amount of inhibition that is obtained.
With the copper, why, vou can see a definite increase
in going from Test 2, where 473 parts per million of iron
were present and 242 of lead, but only 2.14 of copper gave
59.7 per cent reduction in corrosiveness. In Test 3, when
the iron and lead contents were identical and the copper
content stepped up to 3.72, or not quite double that in Test
2, the percentage of inhibition went up, or the percentage
reduction in corrosiveness went-up to 70 per cent. In other
words, doubling the copper content from 2 parts per million,
approximately, to 4 parts per million, increased the inhibi-
tion about 10 per cent.
The lead concentration, if you try to analyzé it, it shows
some slight increase in inhibitive power, but not nearly as
great as the copper, so the iron has practically no effect, the
lead has some effect and copper has a very appreciable ef-
fect, which agrees with Dr. Bartell’s tests.
Mr. Owen: I supposed I had a table showing what the
Doctor has been testifying to, and which I intended to offer,
but it is apparently not available today. 1 would like to
offer it tomorrow morning.
The Court: You may do that. I want to have it as an
exhibit. I will give you a number now. It will be PX-173.
(Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 173 was reserved.)
Mr. Owen: You referred to another series of tests
which you conducted, more or less approximating conditions
which are present in acidizing an oil well. Will you describe
those tests and the apparatus and materials you used in
making them? A. In the large scale tests we used this
pipe ‘‘C’?’ oil well tubing, which we purchased from the Oil
Well Supply Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. There
are a number of charts and figures. I don’t know which
ones you want to intreduce in evidence.
Mr. Owen: Let us use PX-174 for the drawing show-
ing the apparatus which you used in your tests, and which
you are now going to describe.
506
Dr. Carl F. Pruttos
The Court: PX-174 will show this'larger experiment,
_is that it? I am thinking of it as the bigger one.
Mr. Owen: Yes. Now, will you describe the apparatus
and the materials, and the manner in which yqu conducted
those large scale tests? A. The apparatus employed was,
first. as shown in Figure 2 (PX-174) in this report that I
nave. In these large scale tests, approximately 200 gallons
of 15 per cent hydrochloric acid were run through 112 feet
of this 1% inch oil well tubing—15 per cent commercial
hydrochloric avid, and 15 per cent commercial hydrochloric
acid to which various metal concentrations were added. The
acid was all purchased from the Grasselli Division of the
du Pont Company, in Cleveland, and it was regular com-
mercial hydrochloric acid, or muriatic acid, delivered in
- carboys, and we transferred the acid from the carboys
through glass siphon tubes into a stoneware storage crock,
and dilated the acid with Cleveland city tap water to the
correct concentration of 15 per cent.
. The stoneware crock is the one shown in the photo-
graph, P.X-175? A. -Yes. The stoneware crock used was a
brand new stoneware crock, obtained from the Myers-
Knight Company, of Akron, and was thoroughly soaked in
hydrochloric acid for several days before using it in tests,
and between tests was soaked in 15 per cent hydrochloric
acid to be sure that there was no contamination from one
test to another.
The acid was prepared in that crock, and drained from
the bottom of the crock through the spigot into the piping
system, and connections were made between the piping
system and the stoneware crock by means of pure gum rub-
ber tubing, short lengths, and short lengths of 1 inch Pyrex
tubing.
The Court: Is that the part that is the top of the
tubing? A. Yes, the-top of the tubing. Part Y is the
start of the steel tubing. The line connecting-towthe crock
from point Y back to the crock and the line extending up
to the top of the crock is all Pyrex tubing, connected with
short lengths of, rubber tubing whereever connections had to
507
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
&
be made. All of the rubber connections that were used in
this work were soaked in hydrochloric acid for several days
to make certain no soluble constituents of the rubber tub-
ing would dissolve into the acid on the actual test.
The entire line of tubing was made up of 20-foot sec-
tions of this oil well tubing connected together with coup-
lings of the same tubing. The couplings were supplied with
the tubing when we purchased it. And elbows were pre-
pared by cutting the threaded ends off of several lengths
of the tubing and welding those short sections together to
make elbows with threads on them. That length of 1144” oil
well tubing, extending for a total distance of 112 feet, was
slightly inclined so the acid would run through it. I think
the fall from one end to the other was about six to eight
feet in the 100 foot length.
The Court: That is not shown. A. No, this is just a
schematic drawing. It was on a slight incline. At the
lower end of the oil well tubing, the discharge end, a rubber
stopper was inserted into the last length of oil well tubing
and through that a short length of 1” diameter Pyrex tub-
ing, and under that a short length of pure gum rubber tub-
ing. Extending beyond that rubber tubing was another
short length of Pyrex tubing that dipped into the top of
an open bottle. On this rubber tubing we had a screw
clamp so we could adjust the rate the acid ran out of that
piping system. The bottle had an orifice in the bottom,
this discharge bottle that the acid ran into of one-gallon
capacity, and by keeping the height of the acid in the bottle
at a definite level with this definite diameter orifice at the
bottom, the rate of discharge was maintained constant at
one gallon per minute, with a definite size hole in the bot-
tom of the bottle, side of the bottle, and a definite liquid
in that open bottle running into this tube you get a definite
rate of flow. It is a standard method of measuring the
flow. The rate of these tests was adjusted to one gallon
of acid per minute.
The Court: Your final oiliistiniaelt was by the size of
the stream? A. By the size of the stream, by the height
908
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
of the liquid column. The higher that liquid would be in the
bottle the greater the run out of the hole in the bottom. In
other words, we had a constant size orifice.
The Court: The adjustment was by the size? A. By
the size, by the screw clamp. The size of the stream was
adjusted so that we maintained a definite calibrated level
at the bottom. At the top of this system connectipg to the
Pyrex tubing leaving the crock was a gas vent which per-
mitted the escape of any hydrogen gas from the system. It
would simply bubble back up‘the tube and out of ‘the Pyrex
tubing vent at X. We discharged that back into the top of
the crock because sometimes the bubbles of hydrogen carry
small amounts of acid with it, a little slug of acid would be
shot out.
The Court: How did you get it back? A.. We just
bent the tube over the edge, up over the edge. These tests
were run at 85 degrees Fahrenheit. All of the tests were
run after the acid was adjusted to 85 degrees Fahrenheit.
The results of the tests and the data taken are given in in-
dividual tables that have been prepared, and if we take up
the first test that was made—before I take up this first test
I think it would be well to describe the method of cleaning
out this tubing.
The Court: Right in this same book? A. It is de-
scribed in there, all the methods that we used. It is the first
stiff sheet of tabular data there, marked Table I.
The Court: I was wondering if you wanted the whole
thing in. It seems like a very carefully Avorked out and
prepared document. I was wondering if you wanted this as
an exhibit. I am not trying to outline your course of pro-
cedure. I thought before we started using up letters I
would ask you whether you wanted it all in. You have g*
minutes on this one.
Mr. Owen: I have got minutes on this./ This is my
Copy and I have marked it up. Let us consider this to-
night.
The Court: Suppose we call Table I Exhibit PX-176.
And when we get one that you can spare and want to we
509
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
will put it in. I will save you the place. Table I is PX-176.
{Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 176 was reserved.)
The Witness: The method of cleaning the tubing was
substantially the same as was used in cleaning these smal!
specimens that I described in the laboratory test. The first
cleaning operation was the washing of the tubing with a
solvent, acetone benzene, to get grease and paint and oil
off the outside and inside of the tubing, and then the tub-
ing was pickled with hydrochloric acid inside, fifteen per
cent, and then washed thoroughly and then reamed out or
brushed out with this very stiff flue brush, which was kept
very clean and we used a new one on about every second
test to remove any very loose particles of metal that may
have been on the inside of the pipe.
And the inside of the pipe, when that cleaning opera-
tion was over, had a burnished appearance. It was very
bright looking, very clean. The outside of the pipe in these
, tests was not wire brushed as we did in the laboratory test,
simple because the outside of the pipe was not exposed to
the acid in the large scale tests, but in the small scale tests
it was exposed. So we did not give it the same cleaning on
the oufside.
The tnbes and fittings were all accurately weighed, and
the accuracy of the weighings was to about two grams, and
s0 we could determine the loss in weight of each fitting and
each length of tubing in the test. And the pipes were then
carefully assembled, after the cleaning operation and
weighing.
The acid was run through the pipe system after it
reached a temperature of 85 degrees Fahrenheit, and the
rate was adjusted rapidly to one gallon per minute. That
was easily done. It occupied a very short time. And then,
as the acid ran through the tubing, we tuok periodical
samples of the discharged acid leaving the tubing and
saved those samples for analysis and future examination.
At the end of the test, the tubing was taken out and
washed, cleaned and re-weighed, dried, of course, and re-
weighed to get the loss in weight or a rough check on the
ss
510
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
loss in weight, but the amount of iron that was picked up
by the acid was determined very accurately by analysis of
the inlet acid and analysis of the outlet acid during the run.
Now, if we go to Table I, the first run was made using
15 per cent hydrochloric acid, prepared from this Grasselli
commercial acid, diluted with Cleveland tap water. Run
1-A, the first column gives the run numbers. The second
column gives the general conditions of tests and of the acid
used, 15 per cent hydrochloric acid directly from the-stone-
ware crock through the tubing, temperature of 85 degrees
Fahrenheit, at the rate of one gallon per minute, and the
Series 1 tubing.
Now, in order to insure that we had made a valid test,
we simply picked at random five lengths of this oil well
tubing, numbered them carefully and called that Series 1
tubing, and every test in which Series 1 tubing is used has
the number 1 in front of it. So i-A was run with Series 1
tubing. We then picked five other lengths of oil well tub-
ing at random and numbered each length and called those
tubes Series 2 tubing, and so every test run upon Series 2
tubing has the number 2 in front cf it and the letter follow-
ing. It is a different tubing. So we ran the 15 per cent
commercial acid, 1-A is running 15 per cent commercial acid
through Series 1 tubing, and then we took this other set of
tubing, completely different, and we ran commercial acid
through it. So we have two separate, completely separate
sets of tubing, and we kept those sets together in the sub-
sequent runs.
The first run, 1-A, shows a run with the commercial
acid diluted to 15 per cent concentration, temperature 85
degrees Fahrenheit, and in the third column in this table
are the gallons of acid through the tubing between samples.
Now, we took a sample about every 20 minutes, of the
effluent acid, and at that time, at the time of taking the
sample of effluent, we determined the number of gallons of
acid that had run through the system by noting the fall of
level of acid in the crock. We could caleulate the amount
that had gone through. So at the time that 271% gallons
511
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
of acid had run through the tubing, if you follow over you
will see that the sample No. 1, in the samples taken at the
outlet, is opposite that particular volume of acid that was
discharged, and so every 20 minutes we took a sample of
the discharged acid.
At the start of the test, each of these tests, the first
gallon of acid that came through was distinctly dark. It
had a darker color than the rest of the acid, and we found
in each case the initial acid that came through, the first
gallon, definitely contained a greater amount of iron than
the rest of the acid taken at subsequent times. But that
concentration of iron in that first gallon, although it was
high, was not an appreciable part of the total iron dissolved.
It was a very negligible part, and we have shown in these
tables, just to make them complete, we have shown the con-
centration in that first gallon of acid.
The Court: Now, that acid you took where? A. We
teok it down at the bottom. It just ran out of the bottom
- through the whole piping system.
The Court: All through the pipes? A. Yes, and we
took a sample out of the first gallon of acid coming through,
which was a little darker than the rest. After that it cleared
up and got a certain definite yellow color, due to the iron,
and our iron analysis fell down to a fairly stable value, and
we took a sample every twenty minutes of the discharged
acid, and we took two samples, as shown in the fourth col-
umn under the general heading of samples taken at the
inlet, the fourth major volumn, samples taken at the inlet.
The Court: That is way up at the top? A. At the
crock. We took two samples, one at the start of the run
and the other at about haif way through the run. Those
two samples were blended together to make a composite
sample, composition of the acid leaving the crock, just to
save analysis.
The Court: You didn’t analyze that? A. We did not
analyze each separately. We mixed the two together. We
took an equal volume of each.
The Court: I took it from what you said this is in the
512
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
initial test? A. In the crock. They should be just alike.
There was no necessity of checking each one. The composi-
tion of that inlet acid is shown in this sub-head, specimen
Fe, under the fourth column of samples taken at the inlet,
and the next column with the sample number.
The Court: 9.3 parts iron to a million parts of acid?
A. Parts of acid.
The Court: Of the whole solution? A. That is cor-
rect. Now, under samples taken at the outlet, the first sub-
column and sample number, the initial sample out, that was
the first gallon of acid coming through, was slightly darker
than the rest. Then a sample was taken at the end of
twenty minutes and at twenty minute intervals thereafter.
Those 20-minute samples were blended together to make
composite samples.
The Court: Not the first one. A. The first one wasn’t
considered. We took one sample right at the start. The
first gallon of acid through we took a sample. That is the
initial out. No. 1 is the first sample taken at the end of the
first twenty-minute interval. The initial out is the sample
of the first gallon of acid that left the tubing.
The Court: Well, what is No.1? A. No. 1 was taken
at the end of twenty minutes, at the end of the run.
The Court: All right. Now I’ve got you. After that
initial out you bunched three together. A. 1, 2, 3; then 4,
5, 6, and then 7, 8, 9 and 10 were bunched together in pro-
portion to the volume that had run through the pipe at the
time analysis was made for the iron content in those efflu-
ent samples or composite samples and the parts per million
of iron is reported in the second sub-head under ‘‘Samples
Taken.’’ The initial sample out, 2240 parts per million of
iron; the first composite sample of 1, 2 and 3, 1135 parts
per million; the second composite sample 4, 5 and 6, 1450
parts per million; the third composite sample, 7, 8, 9 and 10,
1405 parts per million. »
The Court: Now I am curious to know that there is a
peculiar curve there. It is a way up and down, then up and
then down. I am wondering’if you had analyzed each one
513 "
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
of those samples whether you would get another little hump
in there. A. The initial out is very easily explained. In
the burnishing operation and cleaning there were little
particles that dissolved rapidly so that shouldn’t be con-
sidered: The subsequent, although there is some variation,
the variation is not a great deal. I think particularly in
the last two samples—1450 to 1405 is not a great deal, and
the 1135 that, of course, is lower than the 1450. as
The Court: What do you think No. 1 would be as com-
pared to No. 3? A. Well, it might be 10% difference— ~
something like that; maybe 100 parts per million.
The Court: One or three? A. I think No. 1 would
be lower than No. 3, possibly.
The Court: In other words, you think that that first
gallon out had gotten out all the loose stuff? A. All the
‘oose material.
Mr. Owen: I might call your attention to the fact that
in subsequent tables, II, IV and III, which were ail run
with commercial acids without any additions of metals, the
same ratio or the same phenomenon appears in I, II and
III. That is, the first initial out sample is high in iron and
then the next three, the composite is lower than the second
three, and the final four drops off a little from the second
three of that sample that run through the series.
The Court: What you found was not free iron but fer-
rous what? A. Ferrous chloride.
Mr. Owen: Now, Doctor, explain the entry in the last
column. A. The last column report is the number of grams
of iron picked up by the acid in running through the tub-
ing. The amount of iron at the inlet acid was calculated
and the amount of iron at the exit was calculated and the
difference shows an increase in iron content and it amounted
to 1043 grams of iron or a little over two pounds of iron dis-
solved.
The Court: In other words, if you take this ferrous
chloride and bring it up so you didn’t get your free iron
you would have two pounds? A. You would have two
pounds of metallic iron. Ferrous chloride is FeCl,. Now,
ol4 '
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
the second table, Table II in the first column, the run num-
ber is given as 1-AA, the ‘‘1’’ designating it as Series 1 tub-
ing. The run 1-AA was a biank run of fifteen per cent com-
mercial hydrochloric acid of the same type described in the
first run, run on Series 1 tubing, and the conditions were
exactly the same as in the first run. And in this case the
initial crock acid contained four parts per million of iron,
and the composite samples taken at the exit during the run,
the initial out, was 3,540 parts per million. The first com-
posite 1180, the second composite 1263, and the third com-
posite 1218 parts per million of iron, making a total of 943
grams of iron dissolved in that particular test from the
tubing.
Then in Table III we ran this diluted 15 per cent com-
mercial acid through the second series of tubing, using en-
tirely different tubing than Series 2 tubing, so in Table III
we have run 2-A, ‘‘2’’ designating the series of tubing, and
‘*A’’ designating a blank commercial fifteen per cent acid.
The temperature, rate of flow and so forth was the same as
in the other tests. The inlet iron concentration in the acid,
the acid going in contained 9.3 parts per million of iron,
and the samples of acid leaving the system, the initial out,
3,980 parts per million of iron, the first composite sample
1292 parts per million, the second composite sample 1357
parts per million of iron, and the third composite 967 parts
per million. The total amount of iron dissolved from this
tubing was 919 grams. Then on Table IV we have a dup-
licate blank run with a smailer amount of acid. This is run
2-C of Table IV., The 15 per cent acid was run through
from the stoneware crock in the Series 2 tubing at 85 de-
grees Fahrenheit. The composite of the crock sample was
7 parts per million iron. The analysis of the two samples, —
the initial acid out, 1330 parts per million. The first eom-
posite sample, 1143 parts per million of iron. The second .
composite sample 1088 parts per million of iron. Third
eomposite sample 1070 parts per million of iron. And the
total amount of iron dissolved, 791 grams. So there are the
results of four blank runs.
.
o
515
Dr. Cari F. Prutton
The Court: I don’t consider it of any importance, be-
cause it is so small, but it does show that there was less
than half as much iron in the crock in the sample in Table
Il. They got down to half. A. We had purchased several
batches of acid, and it varied somewhat from the one ship-
ment to another.
The Court: Each one of these acids are different pur-
ehases? A. No, not each one. I have a record of our pur-
chases, and sometimes the purchases overlap the runs. We
didn’t run the same acid through two runs. We purchased
several batches of acid from the Grasselli Company and if
we had three or four carboys left over, we used those three
or four and it possibly went into the next shipment.
The Court: It was so little I didn’t consider it im-
portant. I didn’t count it as being important. And yet
I was curious if it was the same purchase at the same batch
how it would have to vary even that much. Do you know
whether those were the same purchases? A. I don’t think
I could tell. I could not tell.
Mr. Lyon: Can I ask if these different batches or dif-
ferent purchases of raw hydrochloric acid were checked
against any C. P. blanks so that you could tell the differ-
ence? A. We have analyses and inhibition tests of every
batch of crock acid that was used in every run that was
made.
Mr. Lyon: Against C. P. acid? A. Against C. P. acid
and analyses. They are not in the report.
The Court: But vou have those figures? A. We have
those figures, if they want them. They were substantially
_in every run within a few per cent of the corrosiveness of
C. P. acid, the commercial acid that we obtained from
Grasselli.
Mr. Owen: I would like to have the Tables II, III and
IV marked as PX-177, 178 and 179 and offered under those
numbers.
(Plaintiff’s Exhibit Nos. 177, 178 and 179 were there-
upon reserved.)
. The Court: I don’t believe anything has been offered.
516
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
I think I will say Exhibits 1 through 179, inclusive, have
been admitted.
Mr. Owen: Before going on with the examination of
the witness, if Your Honor please, I think it may be well tc
identify these tablea that we were going to offer; and I will
state that a copy of this report was handed to defendant's
counsel just before the adjournment last evening.
Now, PX-173 was a table to be supplied, and I find that
on this report, pages 7, § and 9, are several tables which
I had intended to combine as that exhibit, so I suggest that
the table on page 7 be marked PX-173-A.
(The table in question was then marked PX-173-A.)
Mr. Owen: Then on page 8 there are two tables which
I will have marked PX-173-B and PX-173-C; and on page
% there is another small table which I will have marked PX-
173-D.
(The tables above mentioned were then marked PX-
173-B, 173-C and 173-D.)
Mr. Owen: Then, Your Honor, to identify the other
exhibits in this report, the exhibits which were identified
last evening, PX-174 is on page 34 of the report. That is
the drawing of the apparatus.
On page 35 there is an enlarged detail of the delivery
end of the apparatus, and I would like to have those bath
included in this exhibit, marking page 34 as PX-174-A and
page 35 as PX-174-B.
(The pages above mentioned were then marked PX-
174-A and 174-B.)
Mr. Owen: Then PX-175 is the photograph of the
crock, which is on page 33.
(The photograph was then marked PX-175.)
Mr. Owen: PX-176 is Table I, which is on page 25.
(The table above mentioned was then marked PX-176.)
Mr. Owen: PX-177 is Table II, which is on page 26.
(The table above mentioned was then marked PX-177.)
Mr. Owen: PX-178 is the table on page 27.
* (The table above mentioned was then marked PX-178.)
Mr. Owen: And PX-179 is the table on page 28.
(The table above mentioned was then marked PX-179.)
517
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
Mr. Owen: Doctor, at the adjournment last evening
you had discussed your Tables Nos. I, I], III and IV. Can
you state what the average loss of weight, or, in other words,
the average amount of iron taken up in the acid_as it passed
through the pipe would be for these four runs, basing it on
so many grams per hundred feet of tubing per hour of con- ©
tact between the acid and the tubing? A. I have those
figures here. In runs 1-A and 1-AA, taking first 1-A, the
amount of iron dissolved from the tubing, expressed in’
grams of iron per hundred feet of length of tubing per hour
of contact was 289 grams. In run 1-AA the rate of dissolv- | °
ing the iron per hundred feet of tubing per hour of contact
was 273. So in the first set of tubing, that is, tubing in Set
No. 1, why, the average was 281 grams.
And in the second series 2 tubing runs, with the com-
mercial 15 per cent acid, run 2-A, the rate at which the iron
dissolved per hundred feet length of tubing per hour of con-
tact was 256 grams of iron. In run 2-C the rate of dissolv-
ing of the iron per hundred feet length of tubing per hour
of contact was 239 grams. And the average on that tubing
was 248.
Q. And have you the average for the four runs? A.
You could. You could average 248 and 281. It would be
26414.
Q. Did you make runs similar to those covered by
your tables Nos. I, II, II] and IV, in which you made addi-
tions to the acid? A. Yes. Those results are reported in
Tables V, VI, VII and VIII. ‘
Mr. Owen: I might as well at this time mark those
tables as exhibits. Table V as PX-180. Table VI will be
181; Table VII, 182, and Table VIII, 183.
(The tables V, VI, VII and VIII were thereupon
marked respectively PX-180, 181, 182 and 183.)
Mr. Owen: Now will you explain in connection with
your Table V what that one was, how it was conducted? A.
The run 1-B which is reported, or the data reported on
Table V, the commercial acid was diluted in the stoneware
crock. to 15 per cent concentration and metallic chlorides,
‘
518
Dr. Carl F. Pruttoy
that is iron chloride, lead chloride, and copper chloride were
added to correspond to the composition of defendant’s acid
as reported by Professor Bartell. Those amounts of metal-
lie chloride were added to the acid. The acid was agitated
and before running the acid through the tubing system,
why, a.chemical analysis was made upon the acid to de-
termine the metallic concentrations, to check on the weights
of chemicals that had been added.
Mr. Lyon: Did he add the total amounts that were
found in the defendant’s well samples or did he’ add the
amounts that represented the difference between the de-
fendant’s well samples and the amounts that were in the
raw commercial acids? A. We added the difference be-
tween the amounts found in the commercial acid and the
figures as reported here. In other words, we added the
amount of copper, lead and iron that would build the final
concentration up to the figures we desired.
Mr. Owen: And what were the figures to which you
built up the acid? A. The figures we built up the acid to
correspond to the compositions that Dr. Bartell recorded as
_ having been found in the defendant’s samples.
Q. Well, for the purpose of the record, it is in the rec-
ord, but to get it in connection with your testimony, please
state to what copper and lead content you built up this
acid before running it through the pipe. A. The contents
are all reperted on the sheets and therefore if I can go
through those it would specifically give those concentrations
and there will be no question about it.
Q. Well, now, as I understand, figures indicated on
Table V at the bottom of the second column show the
amount of lead and copper contained in the solution at the
beginning of the run. A. That is correct.
Q. Now before we go into this, I will ask you if you
analyzed these commercial acids as you received them or if
you tested them for inhibition? Please state just what you
did and what you found. A. The commercial acids were
not analyzed as we received them. The commercial acids
were analyzed after they had been diluted to 15% concen-
519
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
tration in the crock just prior tc ac ng the chemicals to the
acid. The reason for doing tl» _ course, was we used
approximately 8 carboys of aci ..d we wanted to be sure
that the acid that we finally had in the crock before we
added the chemicals was representative of commercial
hydrochloric acid diluted to 15%. Therefore, the analysis
was performed at that time to insure no other impurities
had gotten in in the transferring of the acid from the ecar- |
boys to the crock and in the dilution of the acid. And so we
analyzed the acid at the time after it had been diluted to
15% with tap water before these other chemicals were
added.
Q. What amount of inhibitor, or what amount of in-
hibition did you find in the commercial acids as diluted to
15 per cent? A. The per cent inhibition as found in labor-
atory tests on this diluted 15 per cent acid ran from 0 per
cent to a maximum of 6% per cent inhibition, when com-
pared in corrosiveness with 15 per cent C. P. hydrochloric
acid.
Q. And those figures you have just given are for the
solutions which you used as they existed before the runs
were made, is that right? A. That is correct. Before any
additions of metallic salts were made.
Q. Now, will you explain your Table V?
Mr. Lyon: Can I ask one question, Mr. Owen? The
witness said that this figure at the bottom of column 2 cor-
responded to some figure that Dr. Bartell had given. I am
unable to find in Dr. Bartell’s reports where any of the
samples of defendant’s well acid that he analyzed, which
he reports for these parts per million of lead and copper, so
I am unable to understand what figure Dr. Bartell gave to
the witness. A. I would like to correct the statement I
made prior. Two of these runs, that is, of these runs with
synthetic chemicals, were made to duplicate acid whieh we
prepared in a Menaul tank which contained a lead sheet.
We duplicated the Menaul tank system of the steel tank
and lead sheet at the bottom which was being used to trans-
port their acid, and we will report on those tests later, and
Dr. Carl F. Prutto»
we got a certain composition of acid out of that tank, which
differed somewhat from the field samples t that were re-
ported, so two of these tests are tests in which we ran the
same composition of acid that we got out of that Menaul
type tank, which did not differ greatly in the composition of
the inhibiting metals from the field sample analyses as re-
ported by Dr. Bartell, so two tests are run upon synthetic
acid mixturesduplicating the Menaul type acid that we
obtained out of the Menaul type tank, and two of them dup-
licate the analyses as seported to us by Dr. Bartell through
Mr. Rebbeck of the Dow Company.
Mr. Owen: I think it is a matter of little importance
whether these metal contents correspond exactly with Dr.
Bartell’s figures, or not. What these tables show is the
effect of the presence of the amount of copper and lead
which are specified in the tables, and whether they exactly
agree with some other tests I do not think is important, so
I will ask the court and the witness to consider these tables
individually, and explain just how much copper and lead
were in each of these runs—how much copper and lead were
contained in each of these runs.
The Court: I am not to understand, as I understand it,
that your Table V is exactly according to the formula of the
defendant’s acid, as analyzed by Dr. Prutton? A. It is not.
The Court: It is a synthetic one that you made? A.
It duplicates an acid that we made in a Menaul type tank.
The Court: You analyzed it, and this is what it had
init? A. Yes.
The Court: This really is the explanation of it, you
made a synthetic acid in this way, and y.u are going to
show the results?
Mr. Owen: That is right.
The Court: That is all you claim forit? A. Yes.
The Court: All right. That is fair.
The Witness: In the first column the run number is
1-B. The acid was prepared, and contained 390 parts per
million of lead, 2.79 parts per million of copper, and 1682
parts per million of iron. The figure for the iron is given
921
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
—_—
over under the fourth column, and samples were taken at
the inlet, under parts per million of iron. It is the second
sub-head under the fourth column. It is the average of two
samples taken during the run. This acid was prepared and
had those compositions, and then it was allowed to run
from the crock through the tubing system that I described
previously; and the samples of exit acid were taken and
analyzed for iron; and the concentrations of iron in the exit
samples are given in the fifth major column, the second sub-
head, parts per million under samples taken at the outlet.
The initia] sample was 3250 parts per million.
The first composite sample was 1990 parts per million.
The second composite sample, 2010 parts per million. The
third composite sample, 1942 parts per million of iron. Cal-
culating the grams of iron dissolved by the acid in passing
through the pjpe;there were 238 grams of iron dissolved
from the piping systentin the test.
The Court: That is, free iron? A. That is free iron.
This is calculated as free iron. The weight of the iron dis-
solved from the pipe is actually that 238 grams. 238 grams
is very close to a half pound. On the blanket run in this
sume tubing, that is the one with just the commercial acid
without these added chemicals, and they are numbered 1-A
and 1-AA, there were about two pounds of iron dissolved;
and when we put those added chemicals in, it cuts it down
to about a half a pound of iron dissolved.
Q. Will you take up your Table VI, PX-181, and ex-
plain it? A. Table VI is acid that was prepared to dup-
licate our synthetic Menaul acid prepared in our Menaul
type tank. The run number is 2-B. The acid contained 316
parts per million of lead; 3.07 parts per million of copper
and 2315 parts per million of iron at the inlet. We ran the
acid through in the same manner, and the outlet samples,
the samples leaving the end of the tubing system, initially
showed 5970 parts per million; the first composite sample
2750 parts per million, the second composite sample 2770
parts per million and the third composite sample 2610 parts
per million of iron. Calculating that into grams of iron dis-
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
solved from the tubing by the acid, it is 299.8 grams of iron
dissolved, or again very close to a half a pound.
Q. Now, taking up your Table VII, PX-182, please ex-
plain it.
Mr. Lyon: Can I ask a question about Table VI. Is
Table VI another run of this raw acid in a Menaul type
tank? A. Oh,no. This was no Menaul type tank at all. It
was run from a stoneware crock through tubing. That is
all (hat was done.
The Court: That is what I thought.
Mr. Lyon: I understand your explanation to that ef-
fect, but Table No. VI is like Table No. V in that you de-
termined the amount of copper and lead you added to the
raw acid from your tests with the Menaul type tank, rather
than from the directions given to you by Dr. Bartell? A.
Oh, yes; that is correct.
The Court: He made this synthetically, and what he
made it to was not something that Dr. Bartell had made,
_ but something he had made by the experiment that we are
going to compare, so far as it does compare, with the way
the defendant treats and carries its acid. A. That is right;
that is correct.
The Court: I have got the theory of your experiment.
The Witness: We wanted to find out whether that
composition of acid, when separated from the lead plate and
steel tank, would stop the corrosion of the tubing.
The Court: Where we got started wrong, in some way
we got the idea that these had to do with the figures Dr.
Bartell hiad given you, and you synthetically made up to
what he had, and all we had to do was to disabuse our
minds of that. A. In Tables VII and VIII we are going to
take up that type of test.
Mr. Owen: Well, now, take up Table VII, doctor, and
explain that. A. In Table VII, the composition was ad-
justed to the composition as reported by Dr. Bartel! as
existing in the average of samples he had analyzed of the
defendant’s acid.
Mf. Lyon: I want to just stop there. I have been
523
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
“having trouble last night finding anything in Dr. Bartell’s
figures that corresponded to those the witness has given.
Mr. Owen: I will say it is not going to be claimed
these exactly duplicate Dr. Bartell’s findings. Let me ex-
plain. Mr. Rebbeck wrote to Dr. Prutton and told him
what the averages of the samples taken from the defend-
ant’s wells were as to their metallic content. Dr. Prutton
started from that point. Now, whether the actual amount
in parts per million of copper and lead in Dr. Prutton’s
Tables VII and VIII correspond in the minutest detail to
the number of parts per million Dr. Bartell’s tests average
up, I can’t say, but I do say that the figures will show for
themselves, if we compare Dr. Bartell’s figures with these
and they are a few parts over and under.
The Court: And we will be able to do that and if they
are a little bit off, we will have to adjust them a little.
Mr. Owen: That is the position I take, Your Honor.
The Court: All right. Go ahead on that premise.
The Witness: Table VII, we have run 2-D. The compo-
sition of the acid was made up and the final acid before
running it through the tubing contained 455 parts per mil.
lion of lead, 3.7 parts per million of copper, and 418 parts
per million of iron. The acid leaving the system, the initial
acid out, contained 2295 parts per million of iron, 688 parts
per million of iron in the first composite sample ; the second
composite sample, 697 parts per million of iron; and the
third composite sample 669 parts per million of iron. The
total amount of iron picked up,by the acid was 195 grams.
That figure is somewhat less — I found in the iron.
The Court: Let me see, how did you get that 195, by
actual weight? A. We actually count them, the volume
and acid that has gone through in between taking these
samples, and the increase in iron content.
The Court: Did you compute them separately for each
oue of those four figures of iron? A. We computed the
amount of iron. We computed them separately.
The Court: You took that first gallon that went
through and computed at that high rate? A. Computed
524
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
each one of them separately, and then we computed the
other quantities of iron at the total volume of inlet acid,
and the difference between the sum of these exit acid com-
posites and of the inlet acid, that difference was the amount
of iron dissolved.
The Court: Here is what I was getting at, not whether
there was anything wrong about your averages. As I
understand it, you didn’t take an average of four at all, but
you took the first run there, and whaf- did that figure,
29957 <A. Yes.
The Court: You took all included within the next
three sample all at this average figure of 688? A. That
is the figure of 62.7 gallons of acid which had run throug):
at that time.
The Court: Then you computed all that ran througl"
during the next three periods at 697? A. That is correct.
The Court: All at the other three periods at 667. A.
That is right, and added them together.
Mr. Owen: Would Your Honor like to know how he
converted these parts per million into grams?
The Court: Yes, I would.
Q. Will you explain that? A. We have a sample cal-
culation. This is for run 1-A. It is in the report, on page
16, and at the time of taking the first composite sample the
gallons of acid that had gone through the tube was 7614
gallons. And went from zero to 761%, and in the acid there
was one hundredth of a milligram of iron per cubic centi-
meter of acid.
The Court: Yes. A. That is we recorded our analyses
that way, not quite parts per million. It is a different
method of recording. One hundredth of a milligram per
cubic centimeter of acid, and that was the inlet acid. The
exit acid contained 1.22 milligrams of iron per cubic centi-
meter, and therefore the difference came in with .0) and
came out with 1.22, which was 1.21 milligrams of iron per
cubic centimeter.
Now, if we take the total number of cubic centimeters
that have gone through 761% gallons, a gallon is 3785 cubic
525
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
centimeters, ” sage 85 cubic centimeters,.one gallon is 3785
ventimeters,“8o we multiply the gallons times 3785-and we
get the total number of cubic centimeters that have gone
through during the time of taking the composite sample
that we have reported here. That is the total number of
cubic centimeters. Now, each cubic centimeter picked up
1.21 milligrams of iron, and therefore we multiply that by
1.21 and we get the total number of milligrams of iron dis-
solved by that 7614 gallons of acid running through, and
then you divide by 1000 and we have the number of grams
of iron picked up for that first slug of acid, 761% gallons
dissolved 350 grams of iron.
The Court: Then you did the same thing on the others
and added them together? A. Yes, that is right.
Mr. Lyon: I am still somewhat in the dark on one
question, to which I would like an answer. I am just trying
to get an explanation of this, that is, the final amount of
lead and copper as reported at the bottom of column 2,
Tables VII and VIII, is quite different. If those are both
based on something from Dr. Bartell, I would like to know
what accounts for the difference.
The Court: To date, we are forgetting that it is from
Dr. Bartell at all, as I understand. A. I would like to
explain that difference. In preparing these acids and dis-
solving the chlorides in the acid, it was very easy to get the
iron chloride in the solution, and we could get whatever we
wanted in the iron chloride concentration. To dissolve the
copper chloride and get an exact copper concentration was
also very easy; and, as has been reported by myself and
Dr. Bartell, the copper is the vital element in the inhibition.
The lead contributes some inhibition, but it is not nearly as
vital as the copper concentration.
The Court: But it needs the copper to do its own
work, does it not? The lead needs the copper to be ef-
fective, does it not? A. The two cooperate, but just the
extent of the cooperation is difficult to tell from any tests
that have been made; but they seem to cooperate, botn con-
tribute an inhibiting effect, but the copper seems to be the
526
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
one that does the major part of the inhibiting. If we take
the final mixture, if we drop out the lead and iron, the
copper would almost do what all three do. In dissolving
the lead chloride in the acid, it is not very soluble—the
concentration that we do get is almost a saturated solution,
and, therefore, it was very difficult to dissolve lead chlor-
ide and get exactly what we wanted in the final acid, due
to that slow rate of solution. And we did not feel that if
we missed the lead concentration by 50 or even 100 parts
per million that it made a great deal of difference, because
the lead, although it has an inhibiting effect, our laboratory
tests had shown that going from 250 parts per million to
000 parts per million of lead did not change the amount of
inhibition to any extent. Oh, maybe 1 per cent. And there-
fore, if we hit fairly close on the lead, if we got the copper
exact, and hit fairly close to the lead, as close as we could
due to the difficulty of getting it in solution, and the iron
is immaterial, but we could hit that whatever we wanted to,
because it dissolved readily, and the lead is the one we
couldn’t get exactly what we wanted, due to this difficulty
in sobuble effect, and therefore the lead will differ. And
so the figure that was given to us as the composition of —
through Mr. Rebbeck, the average composition of defend-
ant’s acid as found by Dr. Bartell, as I stated, as he stated
in his letter, 3.8 parts per million of copper. Well, on run
2-E, which is in Table VIII, the acid was exactly 3.8 parts
per million of copper. In run 2-D the acid was 3.71 parts
per million of copper which was substantially identical. The
lead, however, in run 2-D was 455 parts per million, whereas
in the analyses it was lower than that. I don’t recall the
exact figure. The amount that we had in run 2-E was 340
parts per million of lead. But our laboratory tests and the
tests of others indicated the lead to be varied from 250
parts per million to 500 parts per million and the corrosive-
ness or inhibition of the acid was substantially identical.
The Court: Now is that true without the presence of
copper, or in any acid with the presence of copper? A.
It is substantially true whether there is copper present or
not.
527
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
Mr. Lyon: Your Honor please, I would like to call
your attention, while you are considering that, to one thing.
The witness, as I understood his explanation to you, said
the significant thing was the amount of copper. And you
could disregard the lead.
Mr. Owen: No, no.
Mr. Lyon: Well, not disregard it, but—
The Court: But small differences.
Mr. Lyon: Yes. Well, now, I call your attention to
Tables VII and VIII. They have apparently almost the
same identical amount of copper, and yet the rate of cor-
rosion in Table VII seems to be almost twice that of Table
VIII, so there is something wrong here.
The Court: He hasn’t got to explaining that. I could
draw, probably, the same conclusion you have, to just look
at it, but I am not going to until I hear what he says
about it. tu fd
Mr. Owen: If I can get along, first I want to explain
this matter of Dr. Bartell’s sample that has been ques-
tioned, and if Your Honor will turn to your Exhibit PX-169
and go over to the right hand portion, under the heading
“Truck Acids,’’ it gives in that, under the heading, first
the Stella Wilcox, then the Zahn and down below, in the
separate column, the Crawford, and over to the left of the
exhibit, the first line is copper. The first figure of 15
grams, or 3.6 parts per million, shows how much copper
there was in that Stella Wilcox sample. And then to the
right of that, under Zabn, 13 grams or 3.1 parts per million,
was how much copper there was in the Zahn sample. Then
if you drop down under Crawford in the first column it
shows 20 grams or 4.8 parts per million. The average of
all three copper contents is 3.8 parts per million. The
amount of copper in Dr. Prutton’s Table No. VII is 3.7
parts per million, and that in his Table No. VIIT is 3.8
parts per million, so that is about as close as anyone could
be expected to get.
Now under the lead content, the second line of figures,
under truck acids, is the Stella Wilcox. lead 1700 grams or
528
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
417 parts per million; under Zahn 1800 grams or 435 parts
per million; and under Crawford is 220 grams or 53 parts
per million, and the average of those is 301 parts per mil-
lion. Dr. Prutton’s Table VII has 455 parts per million of
lead and his Table VIII has 340 parts per million of lead.
Now, if you look at the next line below it shows the
iron content, and under Stella Wilcox it was 1900 grams or
473 parts per million; and in the Zahn 1500 grams or 380
parts per million of iron, and under Crawford it was 860
grams or 210 parts per million. The average of those was
34 parts per million. And in Dr. Prutton’s Table VII he
had 418 parts per million of iron, and in Table VIII he had
382 parts per million of iron.
Exbibit PX-160 is Bartell’s own averages of these
samples. Your Honor will see they are very close to Dr.
Prutton’s.
Mr. Owen: Now, Doctor, will you go on with your ex-
planation of Table VIII? A. Table VIII, Run 2-E is re-
ported. The lead content of the acid 340 parts per million,
the copper content 3.8 parts per million, the iron content
382 parts per million. The exit acid leaving tubing system,
the first composite sample, 550 parts per million, We didn’t
take the initial out. That amount was of such a small vol-
ume, although it may be high, is negligible in comparison
with the total and the first acid sample includes that.
The Court: If you made that very small and part of it
got over into this No. 1, that, of course, would bring that
550 a little higher? A. A little higher, yes. One gallon out
of 191 gallons, no matter how high it is, practically makes
no difference. The second composite sample, 508 parts per
million of iron; the third 483 parts per million of iron; the
total amount of iron picked up by the acid was 101.4 gram-.
The question was raised as to why this figure was 100
grams and the other was 195 grams. The statement fs made
that the acids ‘should give substantially the same amount
of inhibition. When you have an inhibited acid and you
compare the difference between percent of inhibition and
100 percentage, you get into small differences and you can
. .
. ooo
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
rT
magnify interpretations to get a very erroneous picture.
The picture that these tests present to me is, first, that we
ran commercial 15% hydrochloric acid through the tubing
and got a loss of about 2 pounds of iron; secondly, we ran
commercial acid to which we added the metal contents,
varied somewhat, we got from one-quarter to a half pound
of iron—approximately that range. It is impossible to
exactly duplicate the preparation of the surfaces of the tub-
ing in each run, and therefore I do not believe that the fig-
ures given in this report are any more accurate than plus
or minus 75 grams, or some figure like that.
In other words, that there is a variation between the
preparation of the surfaces that has to be considered and
therefore you should look at the thing in a broad way in
taking into account the accuracy of the method and the
variations that might occur in the preparation of the inside
surface of 20 foot lengths of tubing. I really was surprised
at the accuracy we really got in comparing these tests.
The Court: This is about a sixth of a pound? A. No,
about a quarter of a pound. And the other sample of 195 is
about .4 pounds, the other close to .5. So it is between |,
and %. All of these synthetic acids run in that range. So
comparing these two—
The Court: From the corrosive standpoint— A. As
I say, I don’t believe that these results are more accurate
than plus or minus 75 grams as the outer limit of accuracy
and that here we got 195 and 101 grams as the amount of
iron dissolved.
The Court: You dissolved much less iron. About half
as much? A. That is correct.
The Court: So if it will do the other work it would be
much more desirable? <A. Yes.
Mr. Lyon: May I ask what that means, Your Honor?
He says that his results might be off or not accurate by 75
grams. That would mean in the case of Table No. VIIT
thai the results are inaccurate to what per cent? IT mean
what per cent could you say the test was accurate? A. No,
I would say that the test—I have not tried to compute any
230
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
per cent accuracy because I don’t think it is possible, but
the interpretation of the tests you have to include a consid-
eration of the variables that are involved in the test, and I
would say that this particular test, the actual amount of
iron dissolved I am sure is 100 grams or very close to that
at least. It might be somewhat more. We Cid not include
the initial sample, due to some error. That would have
stepped up a little bit the iron and it might be 150, or
something like that. Actually in the weight loss of the
tubing it was closer to 200. We weighed the tubing, and in
this check we got this 101 grams dissolved in solution by
our analysis, but when we weighed the tubing the loss in
weight of the tubing was closer to 200 grams, so I would
say it was somewhere from 100 to 200 grams of iron dis-
solved. The average would be about 150.
The Court: It is sort of an experiment if you wanted
to check yourself by. running two experiments you would
have to rig up the thing the second time? A. Yes.
The Court: Yo couldn’t keep using that over and
over, the same tubing? A. We used the tubing over and
we have data to show that. We have run a series of lab-
oratory tests with this 144 inch tubing, running one run
with an acid and getting the inhibition or corrosiveness of
the acid, then taking it and putting it through this cleaning
and brushing operation and running it over again, and we
ean check with that reuse of the tubing, we can check within
about 10 per cent, within about 10 per cent.
The Court: Do I understand you have performed ex-
periments that would be duplicates of this here? What I
had in mind was as to your frank statement as to accuracy.
I was wondering if I was to understand from that that it is
your opinion that if you tried to run the very same experi-
ment there during several times there would be— A.
Differences.
The Court: A difference. Then it gets down to about
what per cent? A. Oh, it is about 10 per cent. *
The Court: Isnt that what you were asking?
Mr. Lyon: Yes. Although of course an error of 75
a3
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
grams in the case of Table No. VIII would be bigger than a
10 per cent error. A. That isn’t the statement, or else I
made it wrong. I don’t believe that 100 grams could be
25 per cent, I don’t think that. It was actually 101 grams
increase in iron as determined by analysis. That is fixed.
But there might be more dissolved than that, somewhat
more, and it might be 75 grams more. That is about what
I meant.
Mr. Lyon: You made that statement which puzzled
me last night, that you find more loss of iron on weighing
the pipe than you can find present in the acid in all these
tests? A. I will tell you why that is true, because before
re-weighing the pipe when we clean it out the inside surface
will rust slightly, and very rapidly after washing with
water, and we ran that reamer in and dried it again and it
took out a little loose iron, and we got more iron out, so
the weight loss, we do not rely on that.
We can absolutely rely on these chemical analyses as
being within 10 per cent of the figures, and we are talking
here about 70 and 80 per cent reduction of corrosiveness,
and 10 per cent on that is not a major factor, in a practical
sense. If we were down talking of 10 per cent inhibition, 10
per cent would be a major factor. We are talking about 60
and 80 per cent.
Mr. Owen: In your Table VII, the total grams in-
crease in iron which you gave at 195 includes the iron that
came out in the initial out gallon of acid, and in the Table
VIII the figure of 101.4 grams does not include that, is
that correct? A. I would have to check on that. I believe
that is the way it was done. As I said before, the concen-
tration in the initial out, since it is only one gallon of acid,
is a negligible amount, as a rule, and I wouldn’t want to
rely on that difference in the report here to indicate that
that was the cause of the difference. It might account for a
few grams, but it wouldn’t be a major thing.
Now, I wish you would in connection with Tables
V, VI, VII and VIII do what you did in connection with
Tables I, IT, IfI and IV, that is, compute the loss, the
532
Dr. Car! F. Prutton
average loss of weight per 100 feet per hour of contact
between the acid and the walls of the pipe? A. In Table
V, run 1-B, the tubing lost 64.4 grams of iron per 100
foot of length per hour of contact. In run 2-B, the tubing
lost 84.6 grams of iron per 100 foot length of tubing per
hour, and the average of those two, 84.6 and 64.4 would be
149 over 2, which would be 74.5. Then in run 2-D the loss
in weight was 59.3 grams of iron per 100 foot length of
tubing per hour, and in run 2-E it was 29.4 grams of iron,
and the average of those is 44.4. The av erage of the aver-
ages is 59.4.
Q. And the average of the average in connection with
the first four runs is 26444? A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you explain in some way tke relative
rates of corrosiveness indicated by those two sets of runs,
the first four being without an addition of copper or lead,
and the second four being with additions of those metals?
A. Well, if you take—
Mr. Lyon: I am going to object to that on the ground
it includes the result of Table No. VIII, which is admittedly
way out of line, because there was no initial sample taken,
and the result almost 100 per cent below No. VII, which
had the initial sample, and on the witness’ statement, as
it contains the same amount of copper, that it should have
the same value, so where we are averaging figures in here
that are admittedly wrong it should be excluded.
Mr. Owen: I object to the statement that the figures
in Table VIII are admittedly wrong. The witness has ex-
plained that the figures in any one of these tables are not
aun to be accurate to the last degree, and they were
all made in the same way, the tests were made in the same
way, and the analyses were made in the same way, as I
understand it. A. That is correct.
The Court: Well, I will let it go in with your criticism
of it. You may put that in.
A. Well, if we take the corrosiveness of the first four
runs of commercial 15 per cent acid as 26414 and the aver-
age of the last four runs with the added metals as 59.4,
533
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
why the commercial acid is 264 divided by 59, or the com-
mercial acid is 4.46 times as corrosive as the synthetic acid.
The average of these four—
The Court: Do I understand from the eight, however,
there is omitted from that all that ran through in the first
twenty minutes? A. That is not omitted.
The Court: You took these samples every twenty min-
utes? A. Yes, but the initial sample was taken in the first
gallon that came through. The first single gallon that came
through, and then the average sample was taken over that
twenty minute period, and including even that first gallon.
The Court: One gallon? A. Yes. It is a very small
amount and it has very little significance.
The Court: While it is high, in a gallon there couldn’t
be very much? A. Out of 180 gallons that we ran through.
Mr. Owen: Doctor, how much difference would there
be in the figure you have given in your last answer if you
oinitted Table VIII entirely and took the average of Table
V, VI, and VII for the runs in which you added lead and
copper?
Mr. Lyon: My point is, Your Honor, these averages
seem to me have to be scrutinized very carefully, because
when you average two tests that are almost 100 per cent
apart, why you are taking quite a liberty with an average.
The Court: I recognize that.
A. If you take the average of the first three tests,
omitting the test described in Table VIII, the average
amount of iron dissolved was 69.1 grams per 100 foot length
of tubing per hour of contact. That is compared with 59.4
grams loss if you take all four and average them, and the
raw acid, or the 15 per cent acid, the number of times more
corrosive than that is in the acid of the first three would be
26414 divided by 69.1, which is 3.83, so it is 3.83 times as
corrosive, so taking either the first three, or the four, and
averaging them up, the corrosiveness of the raw 15 per cent
acid is about four times as great as that of these acids to
which the metals have been added.
Q. What was the size of your tubing you used in these
O34
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
tests? A. The tubing that was used was standard inch and
a quarter oil well tubing.
Mr. Lyon: May I ask you how much it weighed per
foot? A. I think that is in the report. It is right on the
first page of the report. Page 3, the first one and a quarter
inch oil well tubing, external upset, range 1, 2.41 pounds per
foot of length.
The Court: I don’t know if I got an answer to my
question. This bears the date June 20, 1941. Were all of
these things done prior to that? A. Yes,
The Court: They were all done before that, and then
you made up the report? A. Yes.
The Court: And shortly before? A. Yes.
The Court: I don’t care about, as far as I am con-
cerned, the exact date, but this date here is after you go-
through all of this. A. That is correet.
The Court: You tabulated this. A. Yes.
The Court: All right. ;
Mr. Owen: Now, I would like to offer the report as
PX-184. The offer includes all of the other PX’s which
have been identified in the report.
The Court: Well, I will admit that. The entire report
of June 20, 1941.
(Dr. Prutton’s report of June 20, 1941, was thereupon
marked PX-184.)
Mr. Owen: Doctor, what is the size of the tubing used
in oil wells generally? A. Usually it is about two inches.
Q. Can you compute what the loss of iron would be
in 1,000 feet of 2 inch oil well tubing, taking as the rate of
loss the average of your first four tables, I, IT, IIT and IV,
which you gave as 26414 grams from 100 feet of 1% inch
tubing with contact between the acid and the tubing for
one hour?
The Court: Just on the inside.
Mr. Owen: Just on the inside. A. Just on the inside.
The inside area of 2 inch tubing for 1,000 feet is about 540
square feet. The inside area of inch and a quarter tubing,
1,000 feet long, is about 340 square feet. So if we multiply
539
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
9641, by 10 we get the amount of iron that would be dis-
solved from 1,000 feet of inch and a quarter tubing in one
hour, and then if we multiply that by the ratio of the area,
inside area of the 2 inch tubing to the inside area of the
114 inch tubing, we would get the amount of iron that
would be dissolved from 1,000 feet of 2 inch tubing, and if
we do that the figure comes out to be about 4200 grams.
4200 grams of iron would be dissolved in one hour from
1,000 feet, the inside of 1,000 feet of 2 inch tubing.
Q. And that is about 9.3 pounds of iron would be dis-
solved in one hour, 4200 grams.
Mr. Lyon: Do you have what per cent of the weight
of tubing that is? A. No, I do not.
Mr. Owen: Now, in,what form would that iron go
down into the well? A. ‘Well, it goes down as a mixture
of ferric chloride and ferrous chloride.
«). What action would those ferric and ferrous chlor-
ides have in the well if they got into the formation?
Mr. Lyon: Well, I object to that on the grounds there
is no foundation laid. I mean he is not entitled to express
an opinion unless he is qualified. He hasn ’t testified to any
knowledge of oil well formations or any experience with
them, or anything of the kind.
The Court: I will overrule the objection. A. A solu-
tion of acid containing an appreciable amount of ferrous
chloride or ferric chloride contacting calcium carbonate,
which is the main ingredient of limestone, the ferric chlor-
ide would precipitate as ferric hydroxide and there would
be a tendency to plug up the pores of the formation due to
that precipitation. The ferrous chloride would have some
effect upon the viscosity of the solution, making it a little
thicker if it were present, thus retarding its entrance into
the formation. In forming the ferrous chloride some of
the acid has been consumed, and therefore the acid con-
centration would not be as great as it should have been.
That is, as great as 15%, which is the concentration usually
forced into the top of the well.
Mr. Lyon: F don’t understand that. How much did
036
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
you say the concentration was reduced in this particular in-
stance that you are testifying to? From 15% to what? A.
It would be reduced—I haven’t figured that out. I can
figure it out.
Mr. Lyon: I would like to know what you are testify-
ing to. I would like to know whether that is a significant
quantity or not. In this example you have given, how far
would the concentration be reduced?, From 15% to what?
A. Well, this calculation wasn’t made for the intent of
showing any exact reduction, but if we take a typical oil
well, which is usually a couple of thousand feet deep, and
give some contacts of the acid of 15 hours instead of ore
hour—
Mr. Lyon (interposing): No, take two hours. A.
We", multiply 3 times 15, and we get 45 times as much cor-
rosion.
Mr. Wiles: This is not cross examination.
The Court: This is so complicated, maybe you better
wait. I am glad to have it, but I think there is some other
little thing that is involved that you ean bring up in cross
examination.
Mr. Owen: Doctor, you have referred to tests you made
in a tank, or placing acid in a tank which you have re-
ferred to as duplicating the Menaul tank. Will you explain
what tests you made, how you proceeded. And in that con-
nection, I believe you have a report. A. Yes, I have a re-
port of the tests.
Mr. Owen: I will hand up a copy of this report to the
court so the testimony will be followed and will give a copy
to defendant counsel (handing same to court and counsel).
Q. I think first, Doctor, I will ask you to explain the
construction of the tank which you made. A. We prepared
a tank, a steel tank of 240 gallons capacity, duplicating as
close as we could the important details of the construction
of the Halliburton truck tanks from the information re-
ceived from Mr. Rebbeck of The Dow Chemical Company.
He supplied us with a drawing of the tank, a statement as
to the material the tank was made of, a statement as to the
537
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
relative area of lead sheet in the bottom of the tank to the
area of the inner surface of the truck tank, and as to the
composition of the sheet lead used, a8 well as the methods
of assembling the sheet lead into the steel tank. From
those instructions we prepared a steel tank which is de-
scribed in this report. The tank was 34 inches square by
50 inches tall.
Mr. Owen: May I interrupt just a minute. I think,
Your Honor, I will have this report identified as PX-185,
and then we can refer to pages.
The Court: We will call this whole report PX-185.
Q. Now, what page are you referring to? A. Page 3
is a description of the tank that we prepared.
Q. And where is that tank illustrated in the report?
A. On page 14 there is a side view of the tank in position
for the runs, page 14, or Figure 2.
Q. Page 14 is a photograph in my copy. A. That is
a photograph of the tank. Figure 3 on page 15 shows a
sketch of the tank and shows some of the details of fasten-
ing in of the lead sheet on the bottom.
Q. You might explain that. A. That figure 3 should
be viewed in the other direction. If you hold the report on
the side, the bottom of the tank is down here (indicating)
and this upper edge with reinforcing rim is on the top. The
tank was prepared from manufacturer’s Grade A steel plate
14” thick and was fabricated for us by the J. T. Ryerson
Company of Cleveland, Ohio. The tank was electro-welded.
The inside of the tank was cleaned by sand blasting. And
then a sheet of chemical grade lead was fastened inside the
tank on the bottom. The sheet of lead was burned into a
strip of steel, as described on page 3, on opposite sides of
the lead sheet which was 33 inches square and 1% inch thick,
two strips of No. 10 blue annealed steel, three inches by 33
inches, were fastened to the edge of the lead sheet by burn-
ing.
The Court: What was fastened to the lead sheet? A.
Two strips of No. 2 blue annealed steel. Just thin sheet
steel.
538
Dr. Carl F. Pruttoy
Mr. Owen: Does that appear in that Figure 3? A.
That is the heavy horizontal line.
Q. The steel is in an “‘L”’ shape, is it? A. The steel,
as I recall, was in a flat sheet, and this figure isn’t quite
correct as I recall. I can find out in just a moment, if I
could ask my assistant.
A Voice: It was ‘‘L’’ shaped. A. It was an “L”’
shaped piece. It was not just a flat strip. That is right.
The Court: The sheet right at the corner? A. The
sheet right at the corner.
The Court: Extending up along the side and a little
ways out on the bottom. A. The lead sheet was burned to
the bottom part of that ‘‘L’’ and then the ‘‘L”’ of this blue
annealed steel strip was welded onto the side of the tank at
three points, in order to tack it onto the side of the tank.
So the upper half of this strip at three points across there,
the strip was welded onto the steel tank.
The Court: Does the lead extend up along the side at
all? A. No.
The Court: The lead is just on the bottom? A. On the
bottom, yes, and this ‘‘1.’’ shaped strip of steel was burned
to the lead, and it was spot welded onto the side of the tank
in three places. Now, the tank, before use in these tests,
was polarized, or that is the term used by the Halliburton
Company for this operation. As stated in letters from Mr.
Rebbeck, the Halliburton Company polarizes their truck
tanks. They prepare the tanks.
Mr. Owen: Your Honor wil] recall, that was in Mr. Ed-
wards deposition, which was read into the record.
The Carrt: Yes, I remember. A. They prepare the
tanks when they are new with the steel and lead sheet as-
sembly, and then they fill the tank with acid, and into
the tank, the top of the tank, they insert a strip of sheet
lead, and they connect that sheet Jead with the positive pole
of a lead storage battery, and they connect the tank with
the negative pole of that storage battery, and they elec-
trolyze the contents of the tank, and with the idea that after
allowing the storage battery to become discharged by
939
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
standing all night and current passing through the acid in
the tank, that the tank is polarized.
The Court: Polarizing, you mean a positive and neg-
ative, is that what you mean? A. Polarizing is a term
that has a very vague meaning. That involves mostly any
kind of effect that reduces the voltage of an electro-chem-
ical cell. In other words, if you have a battery and some-
thing happens to it and your voltage goes down, then they
say it is polarized, or if you are electro-plating and putting
a voltage into the cell and the voltage goes out, they say
it is polarized. In other words, it is a general term that in-
dicates something has happened to disturb the voltage re-
lationships in a cell. It is a vague term and covers many
types of things. For example—
The Court: The north and south pole are the positive
and negative, and the electricity does some vague and in-
definite thing, that is what you are referring to by polariz-
ing? A. Yes. It refers to thai, but it primarily refers to
the voltage of the cell. That is the more scientifie defini-
tion.
The Court: It loses it all if it gets it? A. If it isa
battery that is giving out energy, like a storage battery that
you have in your automobile, anything that reduces your
voltage is called polarization, because it is reducing the ef-
fectiveness of the battery, but if you have an electro-plating
operation, that cell is absorbing energy from the generator.
If something happens that increases your voltage, its ef-
ficiency is lowered, then they call that polarization. It isa
very vague term and its use in this particular case is simply
another name for lead plating the inside of a tank. That is
all it is. It is just used in a loose sense, What happens is
that the lead dissolves from tte strip of lead which is put
in the tank and plates out and covers the steel up more or
less perfectly.
The Court: But you have got a steel plate in there that
is the other pole?’ A. That is the other pole, and then the
dissolving—
The Court: You don’t rely on just the steel of the
tank? A. No.
©
t
540 |
Dr. Carl F. Pruttoy
The Court: But when they say they polarize— A.
They have the two poles, the lead strip and the iron tank,
and the lead dissolves’ from this strip and plates -out on the
tank and coats over the steel.
The Court: Is that a strip of lead? A. This is a strip
of iron that we, fasten the lead sheet into the tank. This is
the side of the tank. This lead sheet is down at the bottom.
The strip comes up like this and it is fastened to the bottom,
the lead sheet is in the bottom.
The Court: It doesn’t cover the whole bottom? A. It
covers the whole bottom. :
The Court: The whole bottom is covered? A. Prac-
tically the whole bottom. When they prepare these tanks
they have the lead sheet in the bottom. That will save it
all the time, but they fill the tank up with acid and then they
put another lead sheet in the center of this acid.
The Court: Down into itt A. Down into the center.
Figure 4 shows this polarizing assembly. They put a lead
sheet in there. They fill the tank with acid and put a lead
sheet into it and then connect the lead sheet, this added lead
sheet. Thatgs taken and connected to the positive pole of a
storage battery, but not while it is in use.
The Court: You say not while it is in use? It is while
it is doing this polarizing? A. That is only done once.
That is only done when they first put the tank in service, as
I understand it.
Mr. Lyon: The tank is only polarized once?
The Court: Everywhere there is steel there is a ten-
dency to do that. A. They plate lead on to it.
Mr. Lyon: In other words, you don’t have to use your
acid going into the well to accomplish that result. They
do it in the beginning.
The Court: I guess it is a part of the building of the
tank, if you want to think of it in that way.
Mr. Lyon: That is right. They lead plate the tank in
the factory, or before they put it in service, otherwise they
would have to be using the well operations in lead plating
the tanks.
541
_ Dr. Carl F. Prutton
The Court: All right. But this is once in a lifetime?
A. Just in the beginning.
The Court: What it does is to put a lead coating on
there? A. Partially. )
The Court: And we can think of that as being done
and that acid taken out? A. That acid is taken out and
then the tank is ready for use.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Owen: Then this lead sheet which is suspended in
the tank in Figure 4 is also removed? A. That lead sheet
is removed and the lead sheet in the bottom stays in there.
The Court: Tbat lead sheet is all over the bottom, as I
understand it? A. Yes.
The Court: Will you agree to that?
Mr. Lyon: I think so, yes.
The Witness: The tank was 34 by 34 and the sheet
was 33 by 33, so it substantially covers the whole bottom.
The Court: That explains where I got the idea it did
not cover the whole bottom, but it pretty nearly does. You
cover the whole bottom? A. 33 by 33 we used.
The Court: You followed the same proportion? A.
Yes.
Mr. Lyon: I understand there is a man here thet oper-
ates these tanks and he says these sheets do not cover the
entire bottom, but they very nearly do.
The Court: That is what he did.
Mr. Lyon: There is a certain ratio of the area of the
surface of the lead to the surface of the tank, which we will
have to give you the formula for. A. We had to use that
same ratio as close as could be calculated from the draw-
ings of their tank.
The Court: Now, I haven’t yet got—I understand the
tank is a steel tank? A. Yes.
The Court: Now, you add the piece of steel, but I
haven’t got that through my head vet.
Mr. Owen: The only purpose of that is to hold the lead
in place.
The Court: That is the only purpose? A. Yes.
42
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
Mr. Owen: It holds the lead in place and makes con-
tact between the lead and the iron of the tank, electrical
contact.
Mr. Wiles: That was explained in one of the deposi-
tions. They said it was too difficult to solder the lead in-
side the tank.
The Court: As to this plating operation, if they could
have held it without anything it would have been plated just
the same? A. Oh, ves.
The Court: It has no purpose, only as a holder? A.
That is right.
The Court:- And in makingsthe holder they make it of
steel? A. Yes.
Mr. Wiles: The lead could be just as well soldered or
burned inte the tank direct, only some man would have got-
ten inside, and it was a hard job to do it.
The Court: Well, all right. Now, I have got my tank
straight. .
Mr. Owen: And the sheet of steel at the bottom of the
tank stayed there permanently? A. Well, the strips hoid-
ing the lead stay there permanently.
Q. I mean the sheet of lead stayed there permanently
in the bottom of the tank? A. Yes.
(). And the suspended sheet of lead used during the
polarization is removed after that operation? A. Is never
used again.
The Court: Will you give me some idea how thick a
coating that is, what that means, a little bit more, on that
tank, that lead plating? A. It isn’t very thick.
The Court: It is nothing I can see if I look at it? A.
I think you could. If you wiped it, it would probably come
off, partially.
The Court: Lead is soft so it will come off. A. It will
not be any major thickness, I don’t believe.
The Court: A thousandth of an inch? A. Might be a
few thousandths. It isn’t continuous coating. Part of the
lead plating never continnously plates over the steel, so
there are little holes through it that the steel is somewhat
543 P
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
exposed, but there will be just some particles of lead cov-
ering most of the surface. The exact thickness of that
would be difficult to say, but it is probably a few thous-
andths of an inch.
The Court: Maybe I am anticipating again, but are
you going to account for anything that happens by this lead
coat that is on there tb start in with, is that going to enter
into our problem* & Not as a major factor.
The Court: All right. There is an awful lot of sur-
face of that, if we are looking for a lead surface. A. That
is correct.
Mr. Lyon: That enters into the protection of the
tank, doesn’t it? A. The protection of the tank.
' The Court: But I am wondering if now, in this, they
are going to now talk to me about and have been talking to
me about the inhibition that eomes from copper and lead,
and I am wondering whether you are going to explain in
any degree or take into aceount in any way that lead that is
already plated onto the walls of this tank in connection
with that other subject I have got to think about, which is
the big subject, on infringement. 3
Mr. Lyon: The plaintiff here is talking about the
action on the pipe down the well. The primary purpose or
the real purpose of our lead, bonded lead in the tank, and
the action in the tank, is to protect the tank. That is the
real purpose of the Menaul system, is to protect the tank.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Lyon: What it does down to the pipe is another
thing. :
The Court: What they claim is that your system puts
inhibition into the solution.
Mr. Lyon: They say we get some copper in and that
copper really protects—
The Court (interposing): And lead.
Mr. Lyon: But they say it is really the copper that
does the protecting.
Tie Court: Yes.
Mr. Lyon: Down the well.
544
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
The Court: They give some credit to the lead.
Mr. Lyon: Yes. But as 1 anderstand the witness the
lead is a minor factor. A. Well, it may be one-fifth, if
there is copper or something like that.
The Court: Let’s find out right now, before we get
into this, whether there is any claim that this lead that is
plated onto the walls of the transportation tank enters in
in any way, that plated lead enters in in any way into the
claim of inhibiting the acid.
Mr. Owen: Well, I think it does, Your Honor.
The Court: Well, all right then. That is what I want
to know.
Mr. Owen: My understanding is that the acid placed
in that tank after it has been polarized not only dissolves
lead from the lead plates in the bottom but it also dissolves
lead from the walls of the tank.
The Court: I want to know what to watch for.
Mr. Owen: And that both of those are sources for the
lead which is found in the treating acid. That is your
understanding, Dr. Prutton? A. I think some of it comes
from the sides. It is so indefinite as to the amount I can’t
tell how much of it comes from the sides.
Mr. Lyon: I would like to state our position so the
court may have it in mind. The purpose of our system
is to protect the tank. They polarize the tank to get this
lead plating on it to start with. But if they didn’t have
this lead in the tank bonded to the steel, that lead on the
walls would come right off in a short time. And, therefore,
they have to have this other lead plate in there, which con-
tinues to keep it.
The Court: As I understand it, wouldn’t it continue
it? A. Very slightly. It would continue to some extent.
The Court: And keep it from coming off, against the
taking of it off?
Mr. Lyon: We will show Your Horor how long the
steel tank would last even if we polarized it if we didn’t
have that lead plate bdkded in there to keep up the polar-
izing action.
545
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
The Court: I guess I have it all in mind.
Mr. Owen: I would just like to read from the opening
statement of counsel, which seems to me is not entirely
consistent with what he has just stated that the only pur-
pose of this lead plate so far is to protect the tank.
Mr. Lyon: I didn’t say that.
Mr. Owen: This is what he said in the opening state-
ment: ‘‘Now, as to our method of protecting our pipe, we
don’t add any chemical, don’t add any arsenate, don’t add
any chemical at all. We have an electrical method of
protecting the pipes. Certuinly that raises an entirely dif-
ferent question of infringement than anything they had in
the Williams case where the defendant was adding one of
the very materials mentioned in plaintiff’s patent. Here
we have an electrical method and it is covered by our own
patent.’’ : ¥
Mr. Lyon: Now read the rest of it.
The Court: I don’t understand the change from that.
Mr. Owen: That is the end of it.
Mr. Lyon: Oh, no, it isn’t. I explained to the court
that theoretically the electric current, on a theoretical basis,
may aid in the protection of the pipe down in the well, but
that that was theoretical and could not be demonstrated.
The Court: You continue the battery during the trans-
portation?
Mr. Lyon: That is correct.
The Court: I don’t see why the same operation, leav-
ing the tank, wouldn’t tend to continue to do it.
Mr. Wiles: Did you say he continued at all times the
battery?
Mr. Lyon: We have the lead bonded to the tank and
keep the battery action going while the acid is being shipped
out to the well.
The Court: But you don’t have an outside battery?
Mr. Lyon: Don’t have any battery.
The Court: Pumping on it like you did when you
plated?
Mr. Lyon: That is right.
546
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
The Court: All right.
Mr. Owen: We will go into that question further later
in the case, Your Honor.
Mr. Owen: Now, doctor, will you state how you pro-
ceeded when you made a run through your pipe system
utilizing this polarized tank? A. The set-up of the system
that we used in these tests is shown on page 17 in this re-
port, in Figure 5. We mounted the stoneware crock, which
I have described before in the former tests, on the baleony
of the large laboratory, and from the bottom of that crock
we have Pyrex tubing that would lead the blended acids in
the crock, and we had them at the correct composition,
would lead them into this Menaul tank. You might con-
ceive that this stoneware crock is something like a storage
tank in the actual field operation of this Menaul process,
that the acid is diluted and then dumped into the truck tank
which corresponds to this steel tank of ours.
The Court: Now, your theory was you are getting acid
in this stone crock as near as you could, as you understood
it, like the acid when it was dumped into the transporta-
tion tank?
Mr. Owen: Yes, like the acid after it was placed in the
transportation tank, and diluted to 15 per cent. We placed
in this stoneware tank a 15 per cent solution of hydro-
chlorie acid. :
The Court: I had forgotten the water. So far as any-
thing else that is in the acid other than the water to dilute,
there was nothing else placed in it? A. Nothing else added,
it was simply 15 per cent. .
The Court: It was like it was and in other words com-
mercial acid, as they say at that time? A. Yes, that is
all. We added nothing in the tank except water ‘to the
commercial acid. The general method of the test was to
dilute the commercial acid to 15 per cent concentration with
tap water in the stoneware crock. Then after analysis and
making certain that that acid was satisfactory to employ
in the test by running the hydrochloric acid concentration
and the corrosiveness of the acid as compared with C. P:
47
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
acid, that acid was then run into this Menaul type steel
tank which had previously been polarized and washed out
after polarizing.
The Court: That has got the lead in the bottom and it
has got the plating lead plated as near as you can do it like
the defendant’s tank, transportation tank is lead plated
when they get it in?
Mr. Owen: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: The only difference in the whole thing is
that they have their water in this tank and then let that
run in, and you put the water in above?
Mr. Owen: That is right.
The Court: So instead of my saying when you dumped
it in [I will say right after you dumped it in you got just
what you understand they have right after they put their
acid in? A. That is correct.
The Court: Both as to tank and what is in the tank.
I am ready to go. A. The acid was stored in this iank
before it was dumped into the steel tank, and it was ad-
justed to 85 degrees Fahrenheit, and was kept at that
temperature in the steel tank as well, so we are running at
85 degrees Fahrenheit, just as we did in the former runs.
The Court: Well, now, that is a little bit hotter than
theirs will be, unless it was last week. Last week that
would be a little bit too cold for them, probably. I am just
thinking. I am trying to compare everything as I go along.
They probably didn’t have theirs 85, did they?
Mr. Conner: If Your Honor wants to compare those
particular temperatures that Dr. Prutton is running,
against the actual weather temperature in this state and in
the county of Ogemaw for the days on which those wells
were treated, if you say so I will get those for you next
week.
The Court: That was the reason they took it?
Mr. Conner: I don’t say that, but I merely state I
have the weather reports for those days on which these
wells were treated, August 2nd and 5th, which were very
hot days, as I recall it, it was up in the 80’s and 90’s, and
548
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
September 10th was a very hot day and it was up in the
80’s all of 1938.
Mr. Lyon: It is not a question of what the tempera-
ture is in the air.
The Court: This is hotter for some reason or other
than I would expect to find if I put a thermometer into one
of the tanks. A. Down in the well it gets hotter.
Mr. Owen: You take a steel tank and run it several
hours in the country with the sun shining, it is much hotter
than 85.
The Court: You couldn’t get any temperature but
what somebody could complain about it.
Mr. Lyon: Are they contending that there is some
significance, some infringement here, because we acidized
in the summer? were
Mr. Owen: No, we say that you are infringing both
summer and winter.
The Court: /The doctor had to take some temperature
and it is fair of Ifim to tell us what he did take.
Mr. Lyon: The point is he maintained a particular
temperature in this tank by using some heat, whereas the
defendant, I don’t think there is any dispute, does not add
any heat to its tank.
Mr. Owen: No, we don’t claim that.
Mr. Lyon: It is the temperature of his tank, it is
whatever it will be because of atmospheric conditions.
The Court: If he hasn’t taken it at all you probably
will be saying you don’t know the temperature. We can
readjust from that. We know and I am glad we do, what
temperature he has. A. I think 85 degrees Fahrenheit
is very close to the bottom hole temperature of any wells
_in Michigan, and that was one reason for that. \s
The Court: I got an idea it was a lot hotter, A. I
don’t know. It is sort of an average temperature,-
The Court: All he can tell us is what temperature be
did use. A. This acid was run into the steel tankiand agi-
tated periodically with a glass, heavy glass rod fora period
of six hours. Just stirred it every fifteen minufés with a
549
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
glass rod for a period of six hours, which we felt would
duplicate in some manner the contact-+time and the amount
of agitation that acid being transported in a Menaul type
tank truck would get in being taken from a storage plant
to the well.
. The.Court: And you are stirring it also as near as
you could come to the agitation it would get by being
hauled? A. I don’t think it duplicates it.
Mr. Lyon: I think these-roads are rougher than fif-
teen minutes stirring out in the oil field.
The Court: But they stop and stand. A. After stand-
ing in the tank, the acid standing in the tank, the contents
of the tank was then siphoned through this tubing system
that we have previously described. Now, we had tu, in order
to get it out of the tank without running it out of the bottom
discharge in the tank, we had to siphon it, and shown above
_the tank is an arrow indicating a vacuum supply. We had
a vacuum pump connected with that, and that vacuum pump
went into a large Pyrex bottle, which is shown as a rec-
tangle just directly above the steel tank, right at the top
end.
Mr. Owen: Shown more clearly on page 18, Your
Honor. A. That is correct. The vacuum wes maintained
in order to keep the piping system full of acid at all times.
It was siphoned through the piping system, hut to fill up
the tubing to start the siphoning action we had to apply
the vacuum at the beginning and fi entire system up
with acid, and then start the siphoning action. and we had
to maintain that periodiéally, to apply the vacuum, in order
to remove any hydrogen gas which was formed during the
dissolving of the iron by the acid running through it.
Hydrogen bubbles would accumulate which would break the
siphon action, so the hydrogen was removed through this
vaccum pump, and we maintained a level of acid up into
the bottle at the level mark N on the bottle here, and in that
manner maintained the siphoning action continuously, and
the oil well tubing was always full of acid.
The acid was run through the tubing system at the rate
Ps
Dr. Caxh,F. Prutton
— —-_—-—
of {oe gallong per minute, and adjusted as we have de-
scribed previously. The two different types of tests were
made, first tests which follow the teaching of defendant’s
Menaul patent, U. S. No. 2,149,617. We connected the wire
from the truck tank or the Menaul type tank to the tubing
‘system to make electrical connection between the two, and
ran several tests in that manner following their patent.
Theux we ran also several tests in which we disconnected
that wire to break the electrical circuit and prevent any
electrical action, and the results of those tests are described
in the tables that are contained in this report.
In Table IX, run 1-M, we used the Menaul type tank
and the acid: was in the tank in this case six hours and 33
minutes, agitation, and then the acid was run over through
the tubing at the rate of one gallon per minute, using Series
1 tubing. The average analysis of the acid leaving the .
Menaul tank was 3—
The Court (interposing) : That is at the end of the
pipe? <A. That is at the inlet of the pipe. That is this
steel tank, duplicating the truck tank, That is the inlet.
The Court: When you started? A. When we started
uD in the stoneware crock, the acid contained substantially
no lead or copper, and was substantially as corrosive as
C. P. acid. Then-we ran it into the tank truck and agi-
tated it for six hours and picked up lead, copper and iron,
and these are the concentrations of the acid we took with
that simulated truck during the run, and we analyzed for
the metal content of the acid run through the tubing.
The Court: Your thought being that this was the
condition of it and the content of it as at the time it started
into the tubing and you are trying to show by that what
you think it would be at the time it started into the well.
A. That is correct.
The Court: All right. I follow you. A. (continued) :
362 parts per million of lead, 4.3 parts per million of
copper, and the content of the iron varied considerably
during the run, and we took a number of samples out of the
Menaul type tank during the runs to get more—a better
551
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
picture of the iron content because the iron is an important
element in determining the amount of iron dissolved from
the tubing. And so you find under the heading of *‘Sam-
ples Taken at the Inlet,’’ that means acid taken from the
Menaul tank just before it went into the tubing system,
after it has been in there this six and a third hours.
’ We.took samples while it was running out of this tank
into the tubing, so we would get a better picture of the
metal. concentration, the iron concentration of the inlet acid
to the tubing.
The Court: Well, now that tends to show that it was
getting more iron into it. A. It picked up iron during
the run. ‘
Mr. Lyon: .The rate isn’t reported here. Have you
got the amount of iron you found? A. Oh, yes, it is over
under the heading of ‘‘Samples Taken at Inlet.’’ You see
the iron content of the tank was varying during the run. It
was picked up. The acid was still picking up some iron
from the tank, so we took samples every twenty minutes.
Mr. Lyon: Wasn’t the copper changing, too? A. We
took several samples, but the copper did not show nearly
ag of change that the iron showed, and this figure
4s"the average of samples, and I can give you the indi-
vidual or the composites of several samples that were taken.
Mr. Lyon: Did the lead change, too? A. The lead
changed somewhat, too. These are the averages.
Mr. Lyon: I would like to have, so we can study it
over the week-end for these different tests where there are
averages and you have given only one figure—there are
averages of different samples, I wish you would let me
have the individual data. A. [I will get those.
The Court: I know it shows a quite rapidly increas-
ing iron content. That means iron chloride? A. That is
‘ correct.
The Court: And that means, doesn’t it, that it was
eating off of the tankat that rate? A. Yes, sir.
The Court: Or, at that increasing rate. A. Yes, sir.
You see the commercial acid when diluted, the 15%, had
¢
-_-—
5902
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
—
from 5 to 10 parts per million of iron. We dumped them
all in.
The Court: What is there that shows how much iron
there was in this when it got into the transportation tank
betore it— (Witness interposing): I have all those figures.
They are not on this sheet. It was very low, 5 to 10 parts
per million. We received no acid that had over 5 to 10
parts per million of iron. In the six hours of agitation it
picked up from 1100 to 1200 parts per million.
The Court: Then one of the arguments is it did not
protect that tank? A. It didn’t protect it a great deal. It
undoubtedly protected it over a steel tank but there was
considerable amount of action on the tank.
Mr. Lyon: Could you tell us, also, in this tank whether
there was any lead and copper in the raw acid? A. The
analyses of the raw acid, which I have for all of the runs,
show just fractional parts per million of lead and copper;
all raw acid, and the iron content was never over 10 parts
per million o{ iron, and enly fractional amounts of lead
and copper.
Mr. Lyon : ‘But there was some copper and lead in the
raw acid? A¢ There was, yes.
(Witne’s continuing): This acid entering the system
had an average composition of 350 parts per million of lead,
43 of copper, and then a variable amount of iron as the
run progressed. We analyzed the samples of the exit acid,
the composite samples, and determined their iron content.
And in the same manner that we used in the former tests
of calculating the increase in iron content of the acid going
through the tubing.
The Court: Now, this is the bottom of the tank? A.
The bottom, second colamn from the right.
The Court: Comparable to when it reaches the bottom
of the well. A. Yes. ;
The Court: I am not saying anything about how active
it is, but that is the purpose of it.
(Witness continuing): And from the difference in iren
concentrations and the volumes that had passed through,
553
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
we calculated the amount of iron that would dissolve from:
the tubing; knowing the amount that was in the inlet acid
and the amount in the exit acid, the increase in iron content
came from the tubing and that amount in this test was 322
grams of iron was dissolved from the tubing.
The Court: I think I know what your explanation is
but that initial one again? A. Was the first gallon.
The Court: I think I know what your explanation is,
but give me again why that is the highest of them all. A.
Because in cleaning the tubing out there is always a few
particles of loose igon it is difficult to remove, and theacid
loosens those up afd the iron runs down in the first Slug of
acid; the first small amount contains a higher amount of
iron, usually, than the rest of the acid. Now, it is not essen-
tial that that be the case. In other words, it comes out
when we clean the tubing. As I said before, it is impossible
to clean out 112 feet of tubing.
The Court: What was in there you didn’t clean out
was free iron. That wasn’t iron ferrous chloride? A. It
was free iron but in a very small particle form and by the
time it got down to the end the acid had dissolved it. We
never could detect any metallic iron in the exit acid.
The Court: What is your explanation as to why—why
is it we find an increasing one following that? A. I don’t
know. In this particular case in this one 1106 at the begin-
ning, possibly we had removed all that fine iron dust out of
the sample tube and had done a particularly good job of
cleaning, whereas in the other test maybe we hadn’t done
that and a small amount remained in there.
The Court: Now, you have two columns for the iron
there. Now I get the same sort of results. Or am I too far
into what you are explaining? I get the same sort of thing
away over in the last column for the iron in the sample
taken out. I find the original one is large, which I take it
you explain in the same way as you did the otner, and then
I find it increasing again down there. A. It increases be-
cause the inlet acid is increasing in iron concentration. You
see, the iron from the tank—
do4t
Dr. Carl F. Pruttou
The Court (interposing): But this is increasing. Let
me se¢ if lamright ornot. A. The first one is 370, between
- the first composite in and the first composite out. The next
oné is 217, and the next one 410.
The Court: It goes up and goes down and goes up.
Have you any theory at all about that?’ A. I don’t know
how to explain it. I haven’t any theory for it.
Mr. Wiles: Were those samples the same size? A.
Substantially the same size.
@ Mr. Lyon: Your Honor has referred to that before. I
would Fike to give you some assistance on that. Isn’t it true
that same action is usually found in corrosion of a hydro-
chloric actd on steel—that it goes in waves? Have you made
any tests of that kind? A. No, but the question was asked
me yesterday why the amount of iron dissolved was low at
the beginning of the test and then it rose up and fell off.
The reason in that case—I just bappened to think over-
night—could possibly be the tank acid was 85° I’, the tubing
was 72 because it is in a thermostatically controlled build-
ing, and when the first acid went through the tubing it
“wasn’t quite up to the temperature so the rate of corrosion
was kind of low. When the tubing got up to 85, the rate
got up high and the lead and metals in the acid are doing
their inhibifing action by forming a minute film of mole-
* cules of this stuff, and then tend to drop down as you went
along.
Mr. Lyon: That might be a possible explanation but I
*» don’t think the witness advances it as necessarily the one.
I think it is only fair to state, Your Honor, there is no point
about it in this lawsuit and the witness evidently hasn’t
studied it, but wherever you study corrosive action of hydro-
chloric acid on steel it seems, for some reason (that has
nofhing to do with this lawsuit) to go in waves. It starts
at one figure and evither.increases or decreases, and then goes
the opposite way and does it in waves, for some reason. !t
has nothing to do with this lawsuit. But it seems to puzzle
Your Honor, so 1 thought I would make that. explanation.
The Court: Another thing, as to columns 5 and 7 I
-
D0
Dr. Carl F. Prution
should keep this in mind; shouldn’t I, that in column 5 we
are dealing with a solution that has remained right in that
transportation tank. To use the metaphor here that you
want me to use, all the while, you first take out some; now
the action is going on with the rest while it stays in there,
and the last it has had more opportunity to work on it and
therefore I would expect a little increase along there if there
was any action at all. Now I come over here to column 7
and I have an entirely different proposition and I mustn’t
apply that thought to it at all because that acid is going
on down through and I have nothing to account to me at
all as to why the first that goes the whole length of that
pipe should have any greater change on it than the next that
flows the whole length of the pipe. They are quite different,
so far as that is concerned, column 5 and 7, isn’t that right?
A. They aren’t a great deal different.
The Court: I mean in the first one, if I am drawing
cider out of a barrel that is getting hard, and I only draw it
at different intervals, the last I draw out ought to be harder
than the first. A. Yes.
The Court: Now, I haven’t any such theory I can apply
to column 7 at all. I find nothing in that because it didn’t
take any longer for one part of it to flow from the top to the
bottom than it did the other, you see? A. But in flowing
through this pipe it is picking up iron and the thing we are
noting here is that apparently the rate of picking up iron
does vary during this run.
The Court: Yes. But I say you can’t explain that on
the theory (it may be a poor theory) that the longer it
stayed in there the better chance it had to get iron. While
in column 7 it wasn’t in contact with the iron any longer
than the last batch with the first, while in column 5 the last
batch was in contact with the iron longer. A. But there
are peculiar things happening in this pipe that are beyond
my ability to explain to you.
Mr. Owen: Well, I made some figures here, Your
Honor, that seem to me to be entirely consistent with the
increase in the amount of iron in the inlet samples. That
596
Dr. Carl F. Pruttoy
is where it is going in, the fifth column. I take the second
figure there of 1200 and I find that the outlet, the corre-
sponding outlet samples increased 370 grams of iron, and
the difference between the next two is 417, and the dif-
ference between the final sets is 410, so it seems to me that
increase in the outlet column is accounted for almost en-
tirely by the increase in the iron in the inlet column.
Mr. Lyon: No. A. The difference is closer than the
figures I estimated. I made some mistakes in substraction.
Mr. Owen: 370, 417 and 410.
Mr. Lyon: The court calls attention to the one above
that and the fact there is a drop from the first one and then
it starts going up and then it starts going down again. A.
That has nothing to do with the test. That simply has to
do with the cleanliness of the pipe at the start and the first
gram or two of loose iron in this inlet. In>the initial tank
sample that first gram was taken directly out of the tank
and therefore should be below the samples that were taken
as existed in the tank, so 1106 should be lower than 1200.
Mr. Lyon: Why shouldn’t there be the same difference
at each one of these stages? A. It is, except the initial out.
Mr. Owen: And that has been explained several times.
Mr. Lyon: The first stage of comparison after that in-
itial you say is 370, the next one is 417.
Mr. Owen: Yes.
Mr. Lyon: Why shouldn’t they both be the same?
Mr. Owen: Your Honor, I think we ought to postpone
the cross examination. We don’t seem to be making any
headway at all.
The Court: I agree with you.
Mr. Owen: Now, Doctor, this Table IX you say in
column 2, ‘‘Menaul method acid and special tank.’’ Will
you explain what is the significance of the term Menadi
method there? A. The Menaul method is as described in
their patent, which involves the forming of a galvanic steel
by electrically connecting the truck tank to the head of the
well, or the tubing, and that method was employed here of
electrically connecting the truck tank with the top of the
tubing.
ze
o07
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
Mr. Owen: And that, I will state, is or was the de-
fendant’s practice, Your Honor, in the three wells from
which samples were taken. They connected the truck tank
to the oil well tubing by a copper cable, and their contents—
The Court (interposing): Any battery now mixed up
with that?
Mr. Owen: No battery, no, except that this lead plate
in the iron tank, and the acid as an electrolyte, in itself
forms a galvanic cell. That is right, isn’t it, Doctor? A.
That is correct.
Mr. Owen: But there is no outside battery, no external
electromotive force there.
The Court: Except as the tank itself, with the acid,
forms it?
Mr. Owen: That is true. Now, explain your next table,
Doctor, Table No. X, and at the outset explain the first
statement ‘‘Menaul Method No Wire Connected.’’ That
means, does it not, that you duplicated the other test as
closely as you could, but did not connect the wire in Tabie
X test but you did connect it in Table IX. A. That is cor-
rect. ;
The Court: And IX and X you run just alike except
for that, is that right? A. That is correct.
Mr. Owen: The purpose being to show, Your Honor,
that there is nothing in this connection between the tank
and the tubing.
The Court: I see. In this test, the acid was agi-
tated for 614 hours in the tank. Series 1 tubing was used.
The average analysis of the inlet acid was 158 parts per
million of lead, and 3.25 parts per million of copper. That
is considerably lower in lead than the sample before and
somewhat lower in copper.
Mr. Lyon: About 25 per cent lower.
The Court: And agitated the same length of time and
agitated in the same way? A. As closely as we could.
And samples of acid from the steel tank were taken at 20
minute intervals, and the composite samples analyzed for
iron. That is shown in the fifth column, the figures for iron
598
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
of inlet acid. In the seventh column are the figures for the
exit acid from the tubing system, when the increase in igo
content in acid due to the dissolving of iron from the tub-
ing is figured, 330 grams of iron were dissolved by the acid.
In other words, we got exagtly the same results with or
without the wire connected.
The Court: You have got intervening figures that are
quite different, aren’t they? s
Mr. Lyon: And I eall Your Honor’s attention to the
fact that there was only about half as much lead in the
second sample as there was in the first, and 25 per cent less
copper.
The Court: Less copper.
Mr. Lyon: Yes, 25 per cent less copper. A. I think
it has been shown here that changing copper from 3 to 4
parts per million makes little difference.
The Court: But what I was wondering, how did you
get so much less lead and one-fourth less copper if you took
the same acid? A. Yes, the same original acid.
The Court: I am wondering and I was carrying the
thought that there hadn’t anything at all happened up to
the point of starting that could be different. You took the
same crock. A. That is true.
The Court: You took the same acid and everything.
Why do we start away from scratch with such different
figures? A. Agitating by hand is a very variable proced-
ure, Your Honor.
Mr. Owen: Which run was made first, Table IX or
Table X? A. The first Table LX was run first.
(). Well, might not the larger amount of lead and
copper in the Table IX run as compared with them in Table
X run be accounted for by the fact that the first batch of
acid you put in that tank ate off the lead from the walls of
the tank? A. That is the explanation.
The Coart: But I thought that was when it went into
the tank? This is before it has had time to eat. A. It is
after it has been six hours in the tank.
The Court: This is? A. That is the acid before it
goes into the tubing.
O09
Dr. Carl Fy Prutton
The Court: This 332? A. 362.
The Court: You did have them just alike when they
went in? A. No.
Mr. Owen: When they went in the steel:tank, they
were just alike. e .
The Court: That is what I mean. A. You have four
runs that we made in this tank,-a steel tank. It was polar-
ized once, and the first run made in it, the lead was 362 after
standing. The second run that was made in it the lead was
given at Table XI, and it is 291, so it fellows—.
The Court: Which is the second now? A. The second
run in chronological order is XI, which fs 291, so it fell from
362 to 291. Then the third run is this one that we have
here, and the fourth run is in Table XII, so—
Mr. Lyon: Were there. any interv ening’ runs? A.
There were no intervening runs.
Mr. Lyon: These are the only runs you made? A. Tee.
The Court: Table XII is the fourth one? I will-see if J
get it in series at all. 362 and 291 and 168, is that it, and
then 247? It jumped back up again: A. It jumped back
up again.
The Court: I was wondering that would go down so |
could have some theory? A. Taking a tank and agitating
by hand is quite a variable thing, and it can vary 25 per
cent, and that particularly applies to the lead concentration,
and it is more difficult to dissolve in solution, just as we had
trouble in dissolving lead chloride, and it depends on the
agitation you get.
- The Court: I don’t know/ I better follow that one.
The first one was high because it was so—because it was the
first, and there was more lead coated on? A. On the side
of the tank.
The Court: Because my fourth one jumps way back
up, which had from that standpoint the poorest chance of
all. It was the furthest away ea the battery plating of
the wall, isn’t that right? A. That is true. There is a con-
siderable variation that you will get in lead content.
The Court: A witness when he performs his experi-
960
Dy. Carl F. Prutton
ment, he gets something he can’t explain or I can’t. I am
glad to have you bring it to me just as you get it. Give
me those in their order. A. 362, 291, 158, and 247, I be-
lieve.
Mr. Lyon: Now, Your Honor, I suggest you get the
order of the copper contents too in the same arrangement,
see how they vary. You have been looking at the lead. Why
not look at the copper?
The Court: Well, all right. Give me those, Doctor.
A. The first one is 4.3, then 2.88, 3.25 and 2.39.
Mr. Owen: Now, Doctor, will you explain, or had you
finished with your explanation of Table X?
The Court: Go ahead. I will tell you all Thaven’t any
theory, and I am waiting for you to give me one. A. Yes,
I think I have completed Table X, in which we got substan-
tially the same result as we hed with the wire disconnected
as we got with the wire connected.
The Court: When you got over ta the final result they
come out surprisingly close?- A. That is rights cae
~The Court: But they travel quite different roads to get
there, as I see it? A. Yes.
Mr. Lyon: That is why I aan objecting to these av-
erages.
The Court: Well, all right.» | ° 7
Mr. Owen: Take up Table XT now, Doctor. A. In
Tabie XI the run number is 2-M, and this again is the prac-
ticing of the Menaul process, with the wire connecte be-
tween the tank and the oil well tubing system. The same
temperature and rate of flow of acid Was used.
Q. The same series of tubing? A. The acid was in
‘the special tank for seven hours in this particular case, and
series 2 tubing was used. The average analysis of the acid
‘n the tank was 291 parts per million of lead and 2.88 parts ,.
per million of copper. In ecolumn’5, under samples.taken at
the inlet in parts fer million of iron are given the iron con-
centrations of the acid in the steel tank at various times
during the run. In column No. 7, under samples taken in
the acid ih parts per millien of iron in the exit acid are
é
561_
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
given the figures, the concentrations in parts per million of
iron, and the acid leaving the tubing system at various
times during the run. Calculating the increase in iron con-
tent in the exit acid over the inlet acid is 265% grams of
iron dissolved from the tubing.
Table XII, run 2-N is described. A Menaul method
tank was used. The acid was placed in the tank for 6 hours
and 30 minutes. The temperature was 85, the rate of flow
was a gallon per minute, as before, but the wire was dis-
connected. Series 2 tubing was used. In other words, the
same tubing as was used in 2-M, described in Table XI. The
average analysis of the inlet acid was 247 parts per million
of lead, 2.3 parts per million of copper.
The acid leaving the system,—the inlet acid in the
storage tanks, in the steel Menaul tank was analyzed at
various times during the run, and those figures are giveu
in column 5, under samples taken at inlet, parts per million
of iron. In column 7 are given the parts per million of iron
in the exit acid leaving the tubing. From the increase in
iron content of the acid and the volumes passed through, we
caleulated the amount of iron dissolved from the tubing,
amd it is 195.7 grams. In other words, it is somewhat less
corrosive in this particular test with the wire disconnected
than # was in the test 2-M where the wire was connected.
The Court: Do you attribute it to the disconnected
wire? A. No, I attribute it to the possible variations in
our test conditions. I don’t believe it makes any difference
whatsoever. °I think the result should be the same.
The Court: There is a substantial difference though?
a. 265 to 195 is 70 grams difference.
The Court: . That is put in millions? A. That is grams
of tetal iron dissolved, 265 grams of total iron dissolved. I
don’t bekeve the’ wire makes any difference, and that these
_ tests would indicate that there was any appreciable dif-
ference. The first two comparative tests indicate the same
result and the last two indicate the disconnecting of the wire
gave somewhat lower corrosion. The main purpose of the
. test was to show that the wire doesn’t materially change,—
562
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
+
decrease the rate of corrosion by connecting that wire,
which is necessary to practice the Menaul patent.
The Court: There is a difference of 36, isn't there!
A. Yes, a difference of about 70 grams of iron. .
The Court: That is quite a difference. Isn’t that a
large amount? I don’t know. A. When you take raw
acid and run it through this tubing we dissolve 1000 grams
of iron, and here we have a difference of 70 grams..
. The Court: One would indicate 70 per cent-less harm
than the other; or 30 per cent less harm than the other. A.
I would be willing to concede the disconnecting of the wire
actually improved conditions. I would be willing to ¢on-
sider that.
Mr. Lyon: We are not talking about that. Tell him
how much inhibition it decreased by disconnecting the
wires, or per cent, as compared with the wire connected, in
what per cent have you reduced corrosion, on your own
figures? A. We have reduced the inhibition of the acid by
disconnecting the wire.
Mr. Lyon: By how much per cent? A. By7 per cent,
approximately.
The Court: More than that?
Mr. Lyon: Sure it is more than that.
The Court: You have 265—
(Witness interposing): No, I stated it in the opposite _
from the way you stated. I stated the reduction in cor-
rosiveness or the inhibition in coming from 1000 grams
down toe265, there is 750 grams,of iron difference; if we
reduce it to 195 there is only another 70.
The Court: You reduced it more tWan before.
Mr. Lyon: That is right. A. In corrosiveness. I
said inhibition—
The Court (interposing): But say you have reduced
the corrosion more than 25% by this. You don’t claim it
did, I don’t claim it did.
Mr. Wiles: When you have it pretty well inhibited,
for instance a 99% inhibition, and raise it to 9914, it is tru:
there is a difference 50% in corrosion but practically vou
have no corrosion in either case.
563
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
The Court: All right. But you have reduced the
amount of corrosion by more than 25%.
Mr. Wiles: That is true, but you have started out by
reducing it down to a very small amount in the beginning.
The Couri: Sure.
Mr. Owen: Your Honor, in considering this particular
question you should go back to the tests made from the
stoneware crock with uninhibited commercial acid. Those
showed in Table I a total grams increase in fron of 1043.
The Court: I follow you that you say neither one of
these are corrosive enough to do any harm. That must be
the contention.
Mr. Wiles: They are very greatly improved in that
respect. ;
Mr. Owen: They will do some harm, they are not
perfect.
The Court: Then when it was disconnected it did
change it more than 25%? .
Mr. Owen: I don’t know whether the doctor has any
theory as to why there was less corrosion with the wire
disconnected than there was with it.
Q. If you have a theory, I would like to hear it. A.
The theory of electrolytic protection by galvanic attion is
interesting from a theoretical standpoint of connecting a
metal which will djgsolve more readily than iron to the
iron and many people have tried to apply that in actual
cases and have found that instead of getting inhibition they
get the reverse. They get more corrosion when they con-
nect things together like that, and particularly if they try
to impress potentials upon a metal. I den’t know whether
this would be an instance of that case or not. As far as I
am concerned, I would be willing to say both on the results
of these tests and from my theoretical knowledge, that this
connecting or disconnecting the wire would have absolutely
no difference—it would be a small amount on the inhibition.
The Court: I get this from what you say. You per-
formed many experiments before you reached the con-
clusion this connection of the wire was the cause of the
264
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
change? A. Yes, I wouldn’t expect it to be of very great
difference one way than the other.
The Court: I say you performed a good many experi-
ments before you reached a conclusion. A. The results of
these tests indicate to me substantially there is no inhibition
produced by that wire connection.
The Court: Of course that is the danger. I agree
fully with the explanation that that was less destructive—
the acid was to iron, when it was disconnected than it was
before; I wouldn’t want to reach that on just one experi-
ment. And I understand you clearly to say you don’t reach
that conclusion on one experiment. A. No, these experi-
ments should be considered with the tests that I ran be-
fore. In describing those tests I mentioned that the first
two tests I duplicated the composition of the acid in the
steel tank and ran it directly from the stoneware crock to
the tubing system; not only disconnecting the wire, not
even having the lead plate in there in those tests we got
exactly the same results with the wire connected or dis-
connected. In other words, six different series of tests, all
duplicating, all pointing to the fact that the lead plate, the
wire, the tank, has no effect on inhibiting corrosion in an
oil well, and that also agrees with all theoretical principles
of electro-chemistry.
Mr. Owen: Doctor, while we are on this subject, I
would like to have your theory of the Menaul proposition
that the pipe can be protected from corrosion by connect-
ing up the tank to the pipe by this cable. A. The theory,
as I explained it, in agreement with these tests, as to why
the tubing is protected when they practice the Menaul pat-
ent is simply due to these metals which are added in the
acid and which are fed the acid containing those metals, fed
into the tubing. That accounts completely for the inhi-
bition. The placing of a lead plate in a steel tank at a
position electrically remote from the bottom of the well, or
even inside the tubing, from a consideration of electrical
circuits is that you might get some little inhibition on the
end of the pipe that is sticking into the tank, but in any *
wa soe)
565
Dr. Carl F. Prutton
circuit the electrica) current takes the easiest path that it
can to go through the circuit. It doesn’t go through all the
way to the bottom of a 2000 foot well, jump to the pipe and
run back. If you have an electrical circuit and have two
resistances connected between two bus bars, one resistance
has a very high resistance, the other very low; all the cur-
rent goes through practically the low resistance. There is
no reason as to why the current should go down the acid
through the tubing, to the bottom, jump across the tubing,
back through the tubing, back to the tank as described in
defendant’s patent, and in that way protect the tubing.
Q. I wish you would trace that circuit as described in
the Menaul patent down into the well and then back to the
tank. A. They do describe in the patent one method of
operation which would have some remote change of work-
ing, but which is so impractical that I don’t believe it was
ever even tried out, and that is to lower a lead wire down to
the bottom of the well, keeping it from touching the sides of
the tubing, and pouring acid down between the lead wire
and the tubing. Under those conditions, you might get a
little bit of inhibiting effect. But with the lead plate back
in the tank and the circuit that you have to follow-—if I may
draw on the board here, I would like to draw it.
We simply draw a vertical tube in the ground, that you
can visualize as being a couple of inches in diameter and
several thousand feet in length, and that tube is full of acid.
Then we connect that into a truck tank, and here is the
truck tank, in some shape or other. In the bottom of this
tank is this lead sheet and more or less lead covering the
sides. The iron is partly exposed. There is definitely a
tendency, a potential, which would make the lead negative
as compared to the iron tubing, and a galvanic cell which
you might figure would take some lead and plate it upon
the iron. Now, between the tank and the head of the tub-..
ing there is a copper wire connected. Steel to steel, the
tubing and tank. We have a circuit.
The Court: Each filled with h
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.