# Transcript of Record — Dow Co. v. Halliburton Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386404_0119%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Transcript of Record - **Published:** January 1, 1945 - **Citation:** 324 U.S. 320 ## 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 ...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 hioonesethe 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 hydrochloric acid. A. That is true. This is all acid. Now, wé have a cell in which -- 566 Dr. Carl F. Prutton this is one electrode, the electrolyte or solution in the cell between the electrodes is hydrochloric acid, and this whole system is another electrode. The whole system is one elec- trode. Now, the passage of current between two electrodes in a cell, the current goes in the most direct manner it can. Now, the actual voltage of this cell, as will be shown pos- sibly ‘by the defendant, of we may bring it out, is on the order of a few hundredths of a volt. Mr. Owen: I may read from some of the defendant’s literature where they stated the voltage of the battery formed between the electrodes is ‘‘.35 of a volt. Therefore ‘it should be a good conductor and as little resistance as pos- sible in the short circuit so that this low voltage current can readily flow from one point to the other.” The Court: Now, this copper wire across there just hitches two irons together. A. Two metal plates together, and in between you have acid. The Court: How is it any different than as though here you had a tank over there, and the pipe coming right immediately connecting to it?’ In other words, are all of you—I don’t know, maybe—are any of you claiming that that makes it different than as though this was steel across the top and that just fitted right to it and came right, around and it was all steel and all filled with acid around here? Does the fact that that is an open space there and this has copper across, does that make it different? A. It makes some little difference, but not appreciable. It is the same as you have in any type of battery where you have one electrode, like a carbon rod in an ordinary dry cell, that is the one electrode in the cell, that is the solid conductor, _ and then the other electrode in the dry cell is zine. In be- tween you have a thick solution of ammonium chioride, That is a typical battery. And you don’t get that battery to fune- tion unless you connect it electrically outside. In other , words, the dry cell just stays without acting until you touch a wire across here, or put a flash-light bulb across here, and , then the current flows and then these actions take place. You have a complete circuit here with electrical current flow- = 367 Dr. Carl F. Prutton ing through the cell. And the light lights up. Now, the same thing is true here. If we have that disconnected, and the other connection, if we had this welded across here, we would have the same sort of condition. The Court: That is what I thought. A. And the pas- sage of current between. The Court: Here you had your typical one, and you point out to me that you have one zine and the other— A. (interposing): Carbon. One zine in the dry cell. The Court: Carbon and zinc here. A. Where we have this. > The Court: Lead is plating on one of them. A. Yes. The Court: And to the other. A. The iron of the pipe, the tubing, is the other, all the way down the weil. Now, the current flowing between these two electrodes passes through the path that has the least electrical re- sistance; it takes the easiest path out. It has to go through the acid, and, therefore, it has to go through the acid to the pipe, from the pipe back through the electrical wire and back around in this sort of a circuit, but if here the cur- rent went around in this direction and completed the cir- cuit with this outside wire, we have a complete circuit. The Court: You haven’t got that hitting the lead at all. You have got to have that current go to the lead. A. I assume this was coated with lead. So the current comes from here, to here, back through the wire and back'to here. There is absolutely no reason why it should take a path and run through the columr containing solution for three thousand feet of a very low, poor conducting solution, three thousand feet, jump to the side of the tubing down here, and then run back throught this pipe. Mr. Lyon: Well, just assume that the entire side of the tank is coated with lead, and go ahead with your proposition. A. The inside of the tank? Mr. Lyon: You can’t have current flowing from lead to lead. A. You have exactly the same condition. Mr. Lyon: You can’t have current flowing from lead to lead. The current will flow to the nearest iron. A. If 568 Dr. Cari F. Prutton this tank is completely coated with lead, as you. state, and as I believe is your contention here— Mr. Lyon (interposing): Yes. A. Substantially so. Mr. Lyon: It is completely covered. A. It is com- pletely covered. There is no iron exposed in the tank. Mr. Lyon: You can’t flow the current from the lead plate to the lead covered wall. A. There is subsantially no current flowing from the lem plate to the lead covered wall. Mr. Lyon: The current will try to flow from the lead plate to the nearest uncovered iron. A. I have exactly said that. It would flow from the lead across here. I consider this whole tank a piece of lead, because this is substantially coated with lead. That is all lead. Now, the,current flows from this lead inside the tank to this tubing. But it flows through the shortest path of acid it can flow through, be- cause it doesn’t want to go through ‘a tong path of acid. The Court: That sounds reasonable. A. Therefore, it doesn’t go down to the bottom. The Court: As I understand it, he is asking you to assume that that is all coated. A. That is all lead. The Court: All right. Where will it go to? A. It goes from the inside of this tank, any place from the lead on the inside— The Court: That is all lead. A. That is all lead. The Court: Now, wheref A. It goes to the end of the tubing. Mr. Lyon: When that gets covered with lead, what happens? The Court: That is what they (defendant) will claim, I suppose. They haven’t said that, but I take it the theory is—and I want you to knock it out if it ought to be—I take it their theory is that that will go to the end of the twbing and it will coat that, and then it will go to the next nearest and then the next and the next. ’ Mr. Lyon: That is right. Theoretically, that is the basis of the engineers’ reports on this. The Court: And I think—they don’t tank, if I go in there 5000 feet there is absolutely no ‘elec- tric current resulting from that lead? A. That is my con- tention. a¢2 \ Dr. Carl F. Prutton The Court: Now, then,f have got the idea that you say that for practical purposes there isn’t any of the other side, copper wire connection onthe well side that the cur- ‘ rent starts from, where the copper wire connects to the tubing, and makes its way back through the solution on the tank side? A. The positive flow of the current is in the direction through the walls of the steel tank, through the lead coating on the inside, across the acid and it comes to the closest point on this metal tubing that it can, the cur- rent passes through there, and then back around in that direction, any current. The Court: It never goes any further towards the well than where the copper wire connects with the tube? Mr. Lyon: I would like to correct that. In your ex- planation it wouldn’t make any difference where the cop- per wire from the tank was attached to the pipe. That hasnt anything to do with it? A. That has very little effect. The Court: But you haven’t any of you gotten what is bothering me. I understand the doctor to say that where- ever you attach it, and I agree it doesn’t make any differ- ence, but that when it comes in contact with that tubing that it never goes any further towards the hole in the well, but its course leads back now into the tank? A. That is the main circuit, and the amount of current that would flaw—there would be very little current that would flow, very little. The Court: Now, how far, that is what I am getting at? A. It wouldn’t flow, in my opinion, any distance at all, and the amount is so negligible— The Court: In feet how far? A. I couldn't tell you. You can’t calculate it. The Court: You know it wouldn’t be 5000 feet? Mr. Lyon: You don't know that. A, It is my opinion it wouldn't go twenty feet. The Court: Well, now, that is what I wanted to get at. A. That is my opinion. I can’t prove it, but that is my opinion. d73 Dr. Carl F. Prutton The Court: You could pull one of these things out some day more than twenty feet. Mr. Lyon: He said that was his opinion and he couldn’t prove it. The Court: I know it. Maybe you ean disprove it. Mr. Lyon: I am not claiming I ean. A. We haven't any proofs on that, I mean in the small set-up we made with our tubing system connecting the wire, we found where the tube,—where the wire was connected was inhibited. We had 112 feet in this tube system that we have and we meas- ured the loss in weight of each length of tubing, and even the length where the copper wire was connected wasn’t in- hibited, so I say the amount of current that flows is not enough to do any good. The fact you can break this steel completely and take this whole thing away and get exactly the same amount of irom dissolved all is evidence. The Court: It is my understanding of your testimony that the underlying reason for that is that it is your belief and opinion that this iron in the tank, not to exceed twenty feet of the end of the tube, never gets enough coated with lead, so by what it has all got, it has got enough iron to satisfy its appetite right there? A. That is right. The Court: Isn’t that the meat of it all? A. ‘That is right. The Court: And their contention, evidently, from this, because I feel so right about it, is the faet you wouldn’t start at the bottom of the well, if there wasn’t any necessity for it_—you don’t take a great big detour unless the road is bad straight ahead, but their contention, as I understand it, is that they have got a tank that is coated so much it doesn’t satisfy its hunger for that, and begins at the end of the tubing and rapidly goes down coating the tubing and in that way protects it. Mr. Lyon: May I state the proposition? Our proposi- tion is that we use this Menau! method to protect our tanks. The Court: Yes. Mr. Lyon: Our theory considers there is a good possi- bility that it may do some protecting of the pipe, but it is O74 Dr. Carl F. Prutton purely theoretical whether it does or not, and there is no way in the world of establishing it one way or the other. The Court: As long as they claim their purpose is to coat their tank, that is what they say, that is, that is what they say their purpose is, and it does give protection to it? Mr. Lyon: We will prove that. The Court: I will ask the witness right now, what do you think about that? A. Does it give protection to the tank? The Court: Yes. A. It gives a slight amount. Mr. Lyon: You don’t know if it is more than that? A. I don’t know. We have run tests in the laboratory against steel and it might inhibit the corrosion 30 to 50%, or some- thing Jike that. It would vary with the conditions, Then you plated this battery to get more lead on this and that— The Court (interposing): I haven’t a very big dispute about this thing. Mr. Wiles: The tank hasn't anything to do with the lawsuit any way. Mr. Lyon: I think it has this much to do, Your Honor. Somebody said our use of this method was a smart trick in order to do something down the well. Mr. Wiles: I say it is. Mr. Lyon: That isn’t the purpose of it at all. It is to protect the tank. Mr. Owen: I would like to have the witness retrace that cireuit in the defendant's tank when it is connected up with the oil well tubing by the copper cable. In tracing the circuit, Doctor, although you are illustrating it on the black- board, please make your description perfectly clear so that when read from the record it will be understandable? A. The tubing which may be simply dipped into the tank, or which may be connected through some pumping arrange- ment at the bottom of the tank, is electrically connected by means of a cable at the side of the truek tank: and. there- fore, we will show here a copper cable connecting the oil well tubing to the outside of the steel tank. Now, this steel truek tank has on its bottom a thick vio Dr. Carl F. Prutton sheet of lead, which is connected to the tank, and then due to their preparation of the tank by their so-called polarizing method, they put on a thin coating of lead on the side of the tank, and so we have a steel tank with the bottom prac- tically covered with a heavy sheet of lead, and the inside of the walls of the tank partially covered with electroplated lead. In the tank we have our hydrochloric acid for the acid treatment. Now, we will assume that this tube is full of the fifteen per cent hydrochloric acid, which it would be in case we were transferring it, possibly, through a pump or some other means from the tank down into the well. The Court: Now, I am thinking of that, and see if I am wrong, I am thinking of this as one continuous body of hydrochloric acid. A. That is correct. The Court: I am thinking of the steel as one contin- uous body of steel, and I am ignoring the copper wire. That is simply a little bit better conductor stuck in there, and | am thinking of this as this odd shaped thing running down there and all of that, but I am thinking of this as a solid bit of steel with all that connected across there, of course. A. That is right. The Court: Just as f the steel ran across. And one big spot of lead down here in this, and the sparsely settled lead sticking up there. A. That is correct. The Court: That is the idea I am carrying about that outfit. A. That is exactly correct. And if you imagine that down this well you are about one to three or five thousand feet away from this lead plate, so that this end of the steel tube in this example would be several thousand feet away from here. Now, the operation of this cell is that the lead goes into solution and current passes from: the lead into the solution. Tries to get to the iron. It will go to the iron that is closest to it. The Court: I would think so. A. In other words, the, current from this lead would go to this iron. In order to protect down below here, the current has to pass from this lead sheet, up through the pipe, through the acid, always in , O16 Dr. Carl F. Prutton the acid, down through this column of acid, th-n come to the wall of the pipe and to its protection and then back through the wall of the pipe, back through the copper wire, back into the tank, to the lead plate. The Court: Yes. A. In other words, in this example, which is a simplified diagram, the current goes from the lead into the solution and then travels in varying amounts to the iron surface closest to it, or to the iron surface three or four thousand feet away from it. My contention is that the amount of current that passes from this lead electrode or sheet to a point a thousand feet away is substantially zero, since we have measred the amount of current that passes between this whole! tubing system, the entire tubing system and the tank which we had in the laboratory, and the amount of current was on the order of a few millionths of an ampere, particularly in that the resistance of this hydrochloric acid is considerably greater than the resistance of the metals, and therefore there is absolutely no reason why current will take the hardest way to go any place. That is simply a law of nature. It would take a long while, and a fairly appreciable amount of current at least something greater than the order of a few millionths of an ampere to cover a thousand square feet of surface with any protective coating into the well. As a result of the tests which we have run, when we broke that circuit, which prevents that action, when we broke that we got a little better action than we had with the wire in there. And as I told you before in this applied electrolytic protection, there are just as many examples where elcctroly- tics work in a negative manner than in protecting the metal- lic surfaces, and therefore the statement that I would make from our tests is that the wire had little effect, the elec- trolytic protection had little effect one way or the other, and I think that is what I stated last Saturday. And then the other argument, the difference in potential that existed be- tween this tank and the tube in our set-up was down in the order of one or two hundredths of a volt. The difference 577 Dr. Carl F. Prutton between this lead plating side of the tank is a little greater than that, I will admit, but the potential difference is so slight that any protective action that you would get, the tendency to plate lead out is negligible, because that plating . out requires a different potential. In the surface of ordi- nary steel pipe differences in potential occur between dif- ferent parts of the pipe. That is, if you take a piece of pipe and expose it to hydrochloric acid, or any water solution, differences in potential between particles of the steel and the iron crystals of the ferrite amount to as muel as severil tenths of a volt. In other words, down at the bottom here we have little cells where a particie of iron carbide and a crystal of iron in close contact have potentials of one to three-tenths of a volt, and those little cells will have much greater voltage than you have impressed on this whole system, and there- fore the surface of the iron pipe has a small galvanic cell, and those small galvanic cells,—take your inhibitor, which is plating solution in copper, and plate out the metal with- out any external action. They will plate out a small amount of lead and copper. That is the way the lead and copper acts as inhibitor. It doesn’t need this outside current. It has several tenths of a volt out in the open. A piece of pipe in the open with hydrochloric acid, or any water solution, on that surface there are differences of potential several tenths of a volt. We have that potential and we put a solution with a little bit of lead and copper in it. The current in that little galvanic cell causes the electrical chem- ical cell action and plates the lead on one of those elec- trodes. Now, if we impress another one hundredths of a volt of copper from some source outside, say three thousand feet away, and with a resistance between it, we are not going to get any greater effect or any protection on this metal in solution, and therefore the metal in solution combined with the differences in potential that exists in the steel itself, the lead plates out to some degree, the copper plates out quite thoroughly, and you get a pgrotective film formed on the 578 Dr. Cari F.. Prutton surface of the iron just by immersion of the steel in this lead and copper containing solution. The Court: Well, lead chloride and copper chloride, do they have the possibilities for the little electric current just the same as the free copper? A. They are somewhat dif- ferent in that you plate on a perfect film of lead, it doesn’t at quite the same way as a sheet of lead. That is 100% lead, and you get a definite voltage or the tendency for that lead to dissolve but if you just partially cover it with a few atoms, you don’t get quite as high voltage. The Court: Is this plate we talk about of lead free lead just like our lead plate is when we start or is that coating like the particles that are floating through the acid and really lead chloride? A. It is metallic lead. It is smal! particles of metallic lead, and it isn’t lead chloride. The Court: Well, now as it is, on its way across that, of course, has its origin in the lead plate and it winds up as a thin coating some place at a little or great distance. On its way over there is it free lead or lead chloride?’ A. It is a lead ion with a valance of two and an atom of lead with two electrons removed from it. Completely different. The Court: It is hooked up— A. With chleride. The Court: That is on its way over it goes to pieces again? A. It is plated out. If you will let me, I will show you how lead chloride solution and copper chloride solu- tion— The Court (int rposing) : I want to see after it leaves as free lead and wiftds up as free lead, as I understand it, it gets a ride across there with some new neighbors. A. Yes. The Court: Whether it comes out in a parachute or what, I don’t know, but after it takes that trip across it gets out as free lead again. A. Well, now, the first thing I want to explain is what happens when vou take a piece of ordinary steel and immerse it into hydrochloric acid which contains lead chloride and some copper chloride. We will assume the lead is the material that is going to do the in- hibiting. We have shown in various tests it does a little. I will explain how it does it. There is no free lead in this o09 Dr. Carl F. Prutton system whatsovever—it is just taking a piece of metal, stecl, immersing it into a solution of hydrochloric acid that con- tains the lead chloride in solution. I haven't taken up the lead chloride. ; The Court: You have just got lead chloride then? A. We have just lead chloride without any lead sheet at all (indicating). If we consider a piece of steel, in the strue- ture of steel there are crystals of various materials present in the steel that crystallize out, and some of those crystals, the major part of them, are caystallizing pure iron or ferride (indicating on the board). Now, let us assume that we have some ferride crystals here, covering most of the surface, but in steel we have other elements than iron; we have carbon; we have sulphur and phosphorus, and those elements com- bine with iron to form compounds, and those compounds, when the steel solidifies, they crystallize out and form smal! particles and crystallize around through the surface. The Court: Some of them are better for some uses, for certain uses, and some worse for certain uses. A. That is correct. So we will consider that these are irou crystals, and let us consider here—I want to draw it large enough so that you can see it—this is a particie of Fe,C, or cementite, which is the common form in which carbo occurs in steel. So we have here a particle of cementite in the surface of steel. The Court : I am to think of those as separate mole- cules? A. They are not separate molecules. They are separate crystals. You can see them under the microscope. They aren’t down to the molecules. They are large enough to be seen under the microscope. The Court: But made up of many molecules? A. Made up of many molecules. The Court: They are not all alike? A. They are not all alike. In the case of the Fe,C, there is different, very small crystals of Fe,C, and the ferrite is considerably larger in size. The ferrite crystals, being in larger amount, why, they crystallize and tend to form larger crystals. The amount of iron carbide is usually less than 1 per cent, and, 580 Dr. Carl F. Prutton _ therefore, there is such a small amount coming out the crystals are usually finer, and this particular arrangement, the iron erystal in electrical contact in the body of the steel with another material, Fe,C, two different materials in elec- “trical contact, that is, two crystals which are touching each other electrically in the piece of steel—we are looking through a cross-section of the piece of steel—outside here, if we put on the surface some water solution, and let’s put hydrochloric acid, in the solution, this is what occurs, First the iron has a definite potential or tendency to go into solu- tion, which we call its solution tension. It has a very strong tendency to go into solution. The iron carbide very little. We usually measure those differences in tendency to dis- solve by the voltage, which is the electrical pressure tending to go into solutien. This iron has a very great tendency to go into solutien. This material has substantially none, prac- tically zero. It is quite inert. The iron is a material that tends to dissolve. Now, here we have, if we measure the voltage between the iron and iron carbide, we find it is in the order of one to three- tenths of a volt, which is a fair voltage. The difference in potentiai right in two adjacent crystals here, we have a water solution on top in contact with these two dissimilar particles. - The Court: I thought we had hydrochloric acid. A. That is a water solution, hydrochloric. We have three- tenths of a velt difference. This force is there tending to throw the iron out into solution. The Court: Yes. A. That is the driving force for this cell. And we have a complete electro-chemical cell, we have a cell with an electrolyte, two different electrodes at dif- “ferent potentials, and we have the external circuit with the solution, the metullie cireuit closed, just as thoug?. we had this electrode here or here. The Court: For all we thought of that as a piece of stee!, that we put in, vou get that going on within the fam- ily. A. It is right inside the body of steel. It is just as though we had a piece of iron here in a galvanic ecil, like 581 Dr. Carl F. Prutton a dry cell, and a piece of iron carbide here, and we have .3 volts difference between the two, and then we took and put a bar of steel or something across outside here and dip this in hydrochloric acid. It is exactly the same action. The Court: In other words, it is the same as if there were two different metals. A. Two different electrodes. The Court: Like what goes on between copper and iron, or zine and copper, or lead and iron. A. Yes. The Court: So us between this kind of iron and this kind of iron, you get a— Dr. Carl F. Prutton thing. I would cut back five to ten points on that, and ca’! it 70 to 80 or 80 to 89, somewhere in there. Mr. Lyon: I still want to talk about comparing 2-F with run 1-M. The Court: All right. Mr. Lyon: You tell me that is a different pipe? A. Yes. Q. You have figured the particular pipe for determin- ing percentage of corrosion on PX-188 for run 1-M as against the pipe that was run and called that 100 per cent, haven’t you, or you have averaged it out, the difference in those two pipes: A. Yes. Q. How can you account for the difference between 66.6 per cent reduction in corrosiveness for run 1-M where you have 4.33 parts per*million of copper, and the results of run 2-F which we have just been discussing, where with a less amount of copper you have 89.1 per cent reduction? A. Just in the nature of the tubing. That is the only ex- planation I could give you. It is different tubing. The Court: We have taken the same acid in each? A. Substantially. The Court: You have taken the amount you would eat 100 per cent to start it with? A. Yes. The Court: Well, then, it seems as though that—you have already accounted for all the differences in your tub- ing right there, in that difference in the 100 per cent? A. No. The Court: I take it one would eat mor@-ihan the _ other? A. It wouldn’t account for all the difference. It would account for half the difference here. If your rates of attack are known for two sets of tubing and average them, you are half way off. By Mr. Lyon: a Q. Did you do this, Doctor, or did somebody else in- flict it on you, this average of averages you have got in these tables? A. TI believe somebody else inflicted it on me. I don’t remember. I think the field of comparison i. on one side of the tubing and to simplify the thing it was thrown together. 629 Dr. Carl F. Prutton The Court: Well, then, that is the only average of averages, that top line? A. The top one. The rest are individual, and we are comparing an average of averages of attack on these blanks. The Court: For the purpose of getting at what I was asking you about we should have that performed with the same acid in both cases, and take what they eat as 100 per cent? A. Yes. The Court: Isn’t that right? Then we would get at what I am talking about. A. In one set of tubing we got about 1000 grams and the other set about 800, and there was 20 per cent difference between the two sets of tubing, and so what we have done at the top figure, we have aver- aged up those two rates of plain acid and to compare the individuals and it is not a valid comparison and produces some little difference. The Court: We can’t get at what vou are getting at at all? A. The whole question is entirely an academic one in that we are showing these acids are 60 to 80 per cent inhibited, plus or minus 10 per cent, and that is the story, and to argue on differences of 5 to 8 per cent is simply wasting time. Mr. Lyon: If it is plus or minus, if these results are plus or minus 10 per cent we will say— 637 Dr. Carl F. Prutton get below .3 volts they get imperfect protection, and the amount of current that they use to accomplish that por- tection is a considerable amount. These figures are neg- ligible compared to those figures actually used in that elec- trolytic protection. Q. I am not asking you that. If you would just fol- low my questions, it is somewhat difficult for me to phrase them in this technical subject, I think we could make better progress. I asked you whether or not the fact that you answer that you did not know what potential or driving force was necessary to polarize the pipe at 5,000 feet was because you hadn’t ascertained it or because it could not be ascertained? A. We did not ascertain that. Q. Could it be ascertained?) A. I don’t think it could be easily ascertained. You could, in a laboratory, set up some sort of apparatus, but to try to astrabalate from that down to the bottom of this well, with the complex electrical conditions that vou would have to figure, would be no prac. tical figures whatsoever, and I made no attempt whatso- ever to do that, and we feel that these figures being so minute down to the millionths of an ampere, and thou- sandths of a volt, are so negligible—if vou would take that rail out here in front of the lawn you would find one thou- sandth of a volt difference between the different ends of it, and there is not supposed to be any electricity flowing in it, and the amount is so negligible that as far as I am con- cerned there is no electrical flow there. Q. Well, Doctor, as « matter of fact, even that order of pressure or potential, say one thousandth of a volt, is not enough to accomplish the polarization, you say? A. I would state that it would be my opinion that it would not be anywhere near enough to establish polarization, but | can’t tell you on the basis of any exact tests. Q. Well, then, your testimony that there could be ne current flowing down the acid in the well sufficient to’ pro duce a polarization anywhere down the well, is purely a. matter of opinion and speculative opinion at that. not one that you are able to prove? A. No, it is on the basis of - 638 Dr. Carl F. Prutton my knowledge of electro-chemistry of electric circuits and the results of these tests when made with oil well tubing that showed if you had that pipe polarized in the tests we made, polarized sufficiently to do any good, we would have a sufficient amount of iron dissolved but we got no notice- able difference. Q. Subject to the limits in your error, of course? A. I have stated the limits in error. Q. Now, are you testifying that the current wouldn’t be sufficient to cause any polarization in 5000 feet? Are you of the same opinion the same difference would go al! down to the ground? During that time the lead sheet has corroded and formedead chloride and some copper chloride. The lead chloridesloesn’t all go into solution and be evenly dispersed in this acid. There is some lead chloride of a thin whitish film on the lead plate. The lead chloride on the lead sheet which, of course, is being continually formed, and the loose particles which is dispersed not dissolved then tend to accumulate in the bottom of the tank; the concentration at the bottom when you let it set is greater than at the top. When we took samples of the composite of the tank we dipped into the tank and took the sample. The tube which is delivering the acid out of that tank was just an inch or two above that lead plate, so it was sucking acid by that lead plate, and naturally would have a higher lead content than samples we dipped out of the top or dipped out of the middle of the acid. That is why*the exit acid in this run is higher than the inlet. As I said before, the reason it didn’t disturb us much was it was very easy to see this lead chloride that we have shown and other people have shown, that the amount of lead in the minge of .39 or .49 is substantially the same as an inhibitor. . Q. Well, then, you don’t have am actual figure here for the lead content of the acid as you put it into the top of the.pipe? A. I didn’t say that. I believe the stuff coming out the bottom is substantially the way it went in. Q. I am not asking you that. You don’t have an ac- tual figure— A. (Witness interposing): Of the analysis of the lead edntent going in. We do*not. Q. Do you hate a figure for the actual lead content of the acid introduced into the top of the pipe? A. For all practical purposes the .39is a good figure and .49, or an average, any way you want to take it. The Court: What I understand you to say is you think it is higher in lead. I don’t think“t makes any dif- ference but you think it actually is higher in lead content ° t . 710 Dr. Carl F. Prutton than the average of the whole thing. A. At the bottom, right at the lead plate. The Court: I say that you put in— A. (Witness in- terposing): Yes, that is correct. Q. (By Mr. Lyon): Is that true of the figures you have reported PX-184 and 185 as to the lead content of the acids introduced into the top of the pipe? Are they sub- ject to that same correction? A. I don’t know what the figures are. I would have to see them. Q You know the figures, don’t you, in Exhibits 184 and 185? Maybe you better take a look at them. Figures | for the synthetic acids and the figures for the tank acids - where you have given the lead contents, and tell me whether they are subject to this same explanation that you have given here? A. (After examining documents and books) : We will have to get it out of the book. It is not in the report. Do you want us to go through the book and get the figure? Q. Don’t you report in Exhibits 184 and 185 that these were the amounts of Jead that you found in the tank acids or the composite acids}, I am talking about the inlet? A. Oh, the inlet? Q. Yes. A. The figures are given in the report. Q. Well, now, are they subject to the same explana- tion and correction that you have referred to in connection with this figure of .39, or did you use these figures— A. (Interrupting): I don’t think you would get the same dif- ference in runs—you might—if this pipe were right down on the lead sheet, you would get quite a bit of iron in the effluent acid. If the pipe were to— Q. You must have misunderstood my question, be- cause you are not answering it at all? A. I did not under- stand it then. Q. You reported in Exhibits 184 and 185 figures of the lead content of the acid that was introduced into the top of the pipe? A. That is correct. Q. Did you use these figures that I have been refer- ring to in Exhibit 190 without correction, or did you correct 711 Dr. Carl!®. Prutton them in any way to take care of the feature that you have been referring to? Mr. Wiles: You did not mean to include the exhibit that had the synthetic acids in it, because this factor does not exist there at all. There is nothing about synthetics. Q. Well, I don’t know about that. Well, all right, let us limit it to the Menaul acids. A. The figures that we reported in the report are the analyses of the _—- that | we dipped out of the tank. Q. You did not make any correction? A. We did not make any correction for the effluent concentration. Q. Let us refer to the next item No. 4 on page 136 of this chemical analysis for run C. This is entitled ‘‘Inhibi- tions, ‘small metal samples, sample, weight, loss, inhibi- tion,’’ and there is the series from C-1 to C-8, and the weight losses are given. The inhibition is expressed in grams, meters per hour—I think that is meters, ‘‘Grams m. per hour’’? A. I think it is meters. Q. And the per cent is given, and for C-1, there is no per cent. For C-2, it is given as 28.5; for C-3, it is 32.0; for run C-4, it is 33.6; for C-5, it is 33.3; for C-6, it is 29.3; for run C-7, it is 28.6, and for C-8, it is 34.2. Then there is a marginal note in pencil, ‘‘Not used in report.’’ Now, will you explain that table, and explain what the tests were, what these percentages are, and why you did not use them ; in the report? A. When we started in with this work we knew that Dr. Bartell was employing a small specimen in an inhibition test and a small volume of acid, and we used that in measuring the inhibition of acids in some of these tests as reported here. And the inhibition of our com- mercial ‘acids all ran about zero or very close to it, within a few per cent of zero, on the same small test. And the in- hibition of these synthetic acids or Menaul acids that we ran all ran around 30, between 30 and 40, which is very similar to the results Dr. Bartell got on the field: samples that they had obtained. But when we ran it through the big tubing here we got 70 per cent inhibition. And the thing that we couldn’t ex- 712 Dr. Carl F. Prutton plain was the difference between the inhibition obtained in those small scale tests and in the large scale test. We then thought that the results were probably due because the cutting of the little piece of metal used to work it and deform it a great deal, and therefore you have got a pe- culiar surface, the volume and the time in contact, and so we went to the method that we used in our subsequent inhi- bition tests for laboratory purposes. We simply took a piece of actual tubing and we gave it the same type of cleaning as the tubing got in the large scale tests, and we used the same mass or volume of acid and area in contact with the acid that we used in the large seale tests and used the same time of contact that we did in the large scale tests. The only thing we couldn't duplicate was the agitation. And then we got very similar results in the laboratory and in the large scale tests. And so in the small scale tests the inhibition there says ‘‘Do not use’’ simply because I don’t recall that we reported any inhibitions in the report except this large scale, the one with the one inch aye iron, of oil well tubing, the second laboratory test which we developed which gave us correlation with our large scale tests. Q. Are these small scale tests that you refer to all these tests made with these samples? A. Made with the small specimens. Q. They were made under laboratory control condi- tions, were they not? A. Yes, they were controlled. Q. Carefully made? A. Well, I would say they are fairly carefully made, yes. Q. Well, now, they all showed very much lower per- centages of inhibition than the tests that you reported in Exhibits 184 and 1851 A. That is correct. Q. And you continued to make those tests of that kind and obtained those kind of results throughout all your work, did you not? A. No, sir. Q. When did you abandon them? 717 F Dr. Carl F. Prutton ® the color at the end of a certain titne and that was not very * convenient, and, therefore, there was a chance to make sdine little error there by the observer. And in the second method that color stayed and was quite permanent. Isn’t that the main difference? Mr. Lightfoot: Yes. A. That is my recollection of the two methods. Q. Well, was there more than two methods? A. No. Q. That you employed for copper? A. No, there was just two methods. Q. You haven’t tried any other method since? A. No other method for copper. Q. I notice on page 156 a table eutitled ‘*Coppei Analysis, Runs K and L, Carbamate Method.*’ A. That was the second method. Mr. Lightfoot: Yes. Q. That was the method you actually reported? A. That is the good method, better method, of the two. Q. That is the one you used? A. That is the one on which the figures are based, on the carbamate method. All the figures in the report are based on the carbamate method, as well as Dr. Bartell used that method. (). I notice on the left-hand side of this page a note, ‘Results Discarded.’’ Ruf-on the bottom of the column it says ‘‘Above samples analyses enclosed with report but _ questionable due to color interference.’ Will you ex- J plain that in the light of your testimony! A. The an: ilvst “that ran these samples wrote along the side of them ‘‘Re- sults Discarded. See page 154 for re-run.’’ In other words he must have noticed something was wrong or he did some- thing wrong. ‘‘Above samples analyses enclosed with re- port but questionable due to color interference."’ ** Above samples,’’ that must mean these top ones. I can’t interpret that last sentence there. Were these figures used? Mr. Lightfoot: I don’t know. A. I would like to have the book and take time to cheek it and find just exactly— Q. (Interposing): You do that. We sre going to ~~ 718 Dr. Carl F. Prutton have two hours at noon, and 1 hope you.can do it in that time. A. All right. bao (). Jt takes a long time to check some of these things. Now, the next entry in this book commences on page 158 and is entitled ‘‘Run L,’’ dated May 11, 1940. And the write-up for that run goes through with the entry of results through page 165. And the Conditions of Test on page 161 are stated as follows: ‘Fifteen per cent HC! to be passed into the steel tank and to remain there for approximately six hours with mild agitation. Then to be run through piping system at ap- proximately one gallon per minute. The temperature of acid to be 85° F. Tank and T are not to be connected by any outside connection.’’ And that run L is referred to in Exhibit PX-185 as run 1-N, is it not? A. That is correct. Q. The next entry in the book begins on page 168, entitled ‘‘Run M’’ made December 23, 1940. The write up _ for that run continues through page 175 and the conditions of the test are stated at page 171 as follows: ‘*413 N HCl acid treated with FeCl,. 4 H,O PbCl, and CuCl, to be passed from the stoneware crock at 1 gallon per minute at 85° F. through the tubing system.’’ That run is referred to in PX-184 as run 2-D, is it not? A. That is correct. Q. The next entry in the book commences at page 176 and is entitled run N, dated January 7, 1941, and the write up for this continues through page 183. The conditions of run N are stated on page 179 as-follows: ‘*413 N HCl acid was passed directly from the stone- ware crock at 1 gallon per minute at 85° F. through the tul- ing system.’’ This run is referred to in PX-184 as run 2-C, is it not? A. 2-C is correct. That was reported as 2-©. The Court: That goes direct, is what I was getting at. A. It goes directly into the tubing. The Court: It didn’t go in the tank at all? A. That is right. 7 Mr. Owen: It ran from the crock and went directly from the crock. 719 Dr. Carl F. Prutton The Court: That doesn’t apply to the reason why some earlier ones were discarded, because they didn’t stay in the tank? A. No, it wasn’t in the tank at all. ! Mr. Lyon: The next is a write up commencing on page ’ 184 entitled ‘‘Determination of Iron,’’ and this continues through page 188, and I am going to pass it for the time being, but-it has to do with the new method for analyzing iron. A. That is right. The Court: That one of May 11, 1940, L, I should mark it reported; is that right? Mr. Lyon: Yes. May 11, 1940, Run L, is Run 1-N in Exhibit 185. Q. Now.then we come to page 189, to what is entitled ‘‘Chemical Analysis of Run M”’ and No. 3, Item 3 is en- titled ‘‘Copper Analyses, Carbamate method.’’ A. That is right. Q. That is the method that you say vou adopted and actually used in your report? A. That is right. Q. Now, there is quite a table of these copper analyses, and I notice a note on the side, ‘‘ Discarded See page 256.’’ Have you any knowledge of that? A. I will have to look at it. Q.- You have turned over to page 256. That has a table entitled ‘‘Re-Check of copper analysis, Runs D, J and M.”’ The Court: Can you tell us the occasion of making those and discarding the earlier figures? A. There is no date down here, so you couldn’t tell just when they were run. We would like to check these figures. Mr. Lyon: We were just ealling attention to the fact that they had discarded certain copper determinations, and then it referred to a later page in the book, and there was a re-run of them, and the witness is going to make a state- ment. we commence with thé next run 721 Dr. Carl F. Prutton entered in DX-190, I want to stop and ask you about a com- parison that I note between this run I, which you did not report, with run. H, which you reported under the number 2-M, and run A, which you did not report. I note that this run I, which I am interested in, that the conditions as stated at page 105 show that that was a synthetic acid, an acid made up of adding the copper and lead, and that you added about 4 parts per million of copper and 225 parts per mil- _ lion of lead. A. Does it state that I added 4 parts per million of copper? . Q. That is the figure that we get out of here, if it is any— A. (Interrupting): Does it state that? Q. It says 15 per cent HC! acid, containing 2 2 PbCl.., wand CuCl,, so the composition of acid is similar to that in run H, and run H gave about 4 parts of copper and 225 of lead? A. Similar is not identical. ‘ _Q. Now, then, in that test you would have a synthetic Menaul tank acid, run down the pipe, isn’t that correct? A. We would have a synthetic acid of whatever concentration we had there. Q. And run down the pipe. There would be no tank with the lead plate in it? A. No. Q. And the connection to the pipe? A. No. . Q. Whereas in run H, which became 2-M, you did have the tank and the battery to produce the tank acid, and you ran that acid down the tank with the connection, with the so-called tank connected pipe—isn’t that so? ~Yes. And in the analysis the one sample I that was analyzed showed 4 parts per million. That was taken at the inlet of the tank in the run. That is out of the crock. This is a crock run in I. That sample showed 4 parts per million of copper, which is evi- dently higher than it could possibly have been unless some sort of a mistake was made some place. Then the analysis of the effluent acid leaving the piping system showed about 1! parts per million, the copper solution leaving the pipe— about 4 samples of that were analyzed, and they all showed about 114 parts per million of copper. The Court: How long after you put this copper into that before you analyzed it and got the 4 parts per million? A. I don’t recall the time. : The Court: I mean the one you made synthetically and you had it in what at the time? A. Ina stone crock. The Court: And you put in your copper, and then you analyzed it. You put in what weuld take it up to 2.88, and then analyzed it and had ¢. A. Yes, that was what the analysis showed. - The Court: Now, how long intervened? tell, Bill? You are the one got the report together? Mr. Lightfoot: They a tubing, I believe. \ A. I think these runs could be—this could be very Well explained. It will take some study to do it, and I don’t think the conclusion is valid at all. I would like to take this overnight. Q. Sure. Doctor, if you have anything you want to correct in anything you have said on cross-examination, why I am sure I want you to have an opportunity to do it. and if you let me know why I will ask the court to allow you. to be given that opportunity. New, I did ask yester- day— The Court: All witnesses in my court can do that. I am looking for the facts, and that is all. Q. Plaintiff’s counsel didu’t let me have the cor- respondence between this witness and Mr. Rebbeck. A. I have that. Do you want it? Q. In view of the fact it is referred to at several points in Exhibits PX-184 and 185, I-would like an oppor- tunity to review that correspondence to see what the views are that were exchanged between this witness and Mr. Reb beck in regard to the work that was to be done, and what fhe results were. Is this the complete correspondence? A. That is the complete file of correspondence to everyone connected with these tests, I mean, not only to Mr. Rebbeck. Mr. Lyon: I will examine this this evening, Your Honor. ; Mr. Lyon: Now, have we, as a result of PX-184 and 185, and these notebooks, and these additional‘preliminary or tentative reports that you furnished me, before us for study all of the experiments, and all of the work that you have done for this case, at least up to the start of*the trial? A. Up to the start of the trial, or just short!y before. We have some laboratory inhibition tests that were reported in all different sections of = cf ; 766 ; ; Dr. Carl F. Prutton .the presence of oil that are not in these, books,,and they were completed after the start of the trial, and the_ hooks were not available to put the’data in. Mr. Lyon: I think that that is as far a& I can go with my ctoss-examination, anti I may not have any more; but I would like to look over this file of correspéndenge to- night, Your Honor. NG oie , The Court: All right. \ Mr. Lyon: I am returning to counsel the six partial reports, or preliminary reports, and one of the two volumes he gave me is an empty book, except for two or three pages. I am going to ask that the court. receive as Exhibit _ I)X-190 the original record book which I examined the wit- ness on, and there is — in it except practically this data on this case. Q. Dr. Prutton,-I don , believe you testified to any determinations made as to the percentage of corrosion re- duction or the percentage of inhibition of the Halliburton storage tank acids. Did you make’ any such tests of the acids that you made to simulate them? That is the acu! in the storage tank before it is acted upon in the trans- portation tank. A. I don’t recall that we did. If we did that it was some isolated test that we made, and we did so many of them. Q. Do you know a Mr. Harold Robinson of the Dow Company? A. Yes. Q. What is his position i in the Dow Company! A. He is a physical chemist, in the Physics Laboratory there. Q. I show you in your file of correspondence a letter addressed to you, dated September 12, 1939, signed by Mr. Harold Robinson. Did you receive that letter from Mr. Robinson? A. Yes, I received that letter. Q. And the letter contains this statement, does it not, ‘*We would prefer to use the same commercial acid (Gen- eral Chemical Company, Chicago) as was used by Hauli- burton in the well treatments with which we are concerned, if we could be sure that the acid would have inhibition of the same order (10 to 15 per cent) as the Halliburton stor- - °° 767 Dr. Carl F. Prutton - age acid. We have observed occasional high inhibition in this and other commercial acids. I should say that there might be an advantage to using Graselli acid in that you would probably have a chance to check on the inhibition before buying it in any large quantity.’ > L have correctly quoted the letter, have I not? A. I don’t recall. Q. Just read it over, if you will. A. You quoted cor- rectly from the letter. Q. Now, you understand from this letter that the Halliburton acid corresponding to that used by Halliburton in the well treatments which had \been sampled was acid from the General Chemical Company of Chicago, and was inhibited and contained in its raw state inhibition as high as 10 to 15 per cent, did you not? A. Well, the story of the initiation of this work is not simply—cannot be taken from one letter. | There were a series of conferences and distussions that were held between myself and Mr. Cham- ‘Derlain, and plso Mr. Rebbeck. Q. I asked you if you had that understanding of this _paragraph. If you will just answer that question, then we will get along to another. A. I didn’t pay any attention to that paragraph. * Q. You didn’t? A. No. I did not pay attention to a lot of things that Robinson told me to do. He was a sort of an assistant in the laboratory with Mr. Chamber- lain, and instead of specifically following his instructions | took more of my general directions from these conferences with Mr. Chamberlain, who was his superior. Robinson suggested, for example, a tremendous amount of electro- potential work that would have taken months and years and many men to do, and I simply didn’t follow that. The Court: Is Robinson still with the Dow Company? A. Yes, he is. Q. Who suggested that you make your comparisons and your experiments with Graselli acid, which, as you have suggested, was practically chemically pure, rather than with raw commercial acid of the type used by Halli- burton, which in its raw state was 10 to 15 per cent in- Dr. Carl F. Prutton hibited? A. Well, I can’t enlighten you upon that. You found in our books and we evidently ran inhibition tests on this Penn Salt acid and Graselli acid and found some slight inhibition, and the purpose of the tests, as I saw it, and I was given quite a good deal of latitude, not at all times specifie instructions from these men at Dow. I received letters from Robinson with many detailed suggestions, but I followed very few of them. I don’t recall hardly any that I followed. The outline of the whole problem, the general problem was to determine if in a large scale set up these metallic components would greatly inhibit the acid and to determine the effect that this lead plate in the Menaul process had contributed to that inhibition, or whether it contributed at all. And the decision to use the acid, we must have discussed, for I ran this Penn or our men ran this Penn Salt acid. That must have been discussed in one of these meetings or conferences we had, and here with two types of commercial acid, and then with Graselli’s very close to us, and in my opinion it made no difference, practi- cally, as to the finding of this work, the general findings, as to whether a considerable amount of lead and some copper in the acid would greatly inhibit—increase the inhibition of commercial acid when run through a pipe system. That | think we have done and I think is independent of a varia- tion in some small percentage in the acid inhibition. Q. I show you a letter under the letterhead of The Dow Chemical Company, addressed to you, ‘‘Re: Acidizing Contact Time”’ signed by Mr. J. Rebbeck, Patent Depart- ment. Did you receive this letter? A. I did receive it. Q. Is this Mr. Rebbeck’s signature? A. It is. Q. Mr. Rebbeck is the witness who was here on the stand sometime ago in this ease. A. Yes. Mr. Lyon: I want to read this letter to the court. It is dated January 24, 1941. In reading it to the court I will ask the court to have in mind the Dow men were present at these wells where they have obtained these samples, so they have full information as to the facts that are reported in this letter by the Dow Company. 769 Dr. Carl F. Prutton Mr. Lyon: I think I will offer in evidence the previous letter dated September 12, 1939, from Mr. Robinson to Mr. Prutton. With the understanding if you don’t want to destroy the file, the reporter can copy it in. (Whereupon the document above referred. to was .. marked DX 221, and reads as follows: . “THE DOW CHEMSCAL COMPANY Midland, Michigan, U.S. A. * ° September 12, 1939. , “Dr. C. F. Prutton, Case School of Applied Science, et ang Ohio, | . De r. Prutton: ‘We have already forwarded to you under separate cover data relative to the composition of Halliburton lead and that section of the depositions dealing with the layout of the truck tanks. r ‘*As for the ratio of Pb area to Fe area and the com- position of the steel used for the truck tanks, I am asking- Conner to get this data as soon as possible. We should be able to get the Pb-Fe area figure without much trouble, but as to the other item there may be some delay. I assume that in the case of the steel analysis you are mainly con- cerned with the copper content, insofar as it will determine whether or not your tank produces an acid having approxi- mately the same copper content as the Halliburton truck acids. (We have some experimental runs which show that the copper in the acid is derived from both the lead and the iron, for a well tubing—Halliburton Pb couple in 15% HCl.) In order to avoid having to duplicate the steel from Halliburton’s tanks, we might substitute for Test Run € a run similar to B, except that the acid in the crock would be synthetic Halliburton truck acid, i. e., metals added, which would be run through the steel tank rapidly as in B in order to avoid further metal pickup. That is, the in- ventory in the steel tank would be kept just high enough to allow for siphoning and getting the electrical output of the 770 Dr. Carl F. Prutton couple into the tubing, possibly. a 20-gallon inventory or thereabouts. I take this to be what you have in mind for Test Run B. With this procedure, we need only be con- cerned with avoiding an excessively high copper steel. far as I know the electrical output of the cell is not going to be appreciably .effected by the usual variations in steel composition. * ‘The tubing you require can be purchased from the il Well Supply Company, which has supply houses at Pittspurgh, Oil City, Franklin, and Butler in Pennsylvania and at Wooster and Newark in Ohio. This tubing is made by the National Tube Company. ‘Bartell has been using 2” API seamless tubing. The smallest tubing of this kind available appears to be 114” - nominal (1.38 I. D.), but to get this under A. P. I. specifica- tiqis it is necessary to take an external upset joint, which you will probably only cut off anyway to get steel samples. The specifications for this tubing are as follows: ‘*National A. P. L. External Upset tubing (quantity re- quired), 144” (nominal), 2.342/ft. with threads and upset without coupling, seamless, external upset, grade C. Specify length wanted. ‘‘The same tubing without the upset and lacking A. P. I. recognition or approval is sold at National Oil Well Tub- ing, 114”, 2.27+/ft., seamless, plain end, grade C. » mereial acid. And then he did two things. He built up + s > 785 Dr. Carl F. Prutton that commercial acid synthetically by adding metals in amounts comparable to those found in the defendant’s acids, and he tested those through this apparatus, running it from a stoneware crock where there could be no change except that which took place in the pipe, and then he went fur- ther and he built a tank to simulate the Halliburton tank, and he put commercial acid into that tank and let it stand there for six and a half hours, end stirred it every fifteen minutes, so as to get as nearly as possible an acid that would have resulted had the commercial acid been carried in a Halliburton tank for six hours. Then he ran that acid from this simulated Halliburton tank through the system, and he analyzed it to see how much copper or how much iron there was when it started through the piping system, and he analyzed it to see how much there was when it got through, and he took the xmount of iron that was taken up from the pipe and com- pared that amount with the amount of iron that was taken up from the pipe with the commercial acid, without any additions, run from the crock through the pipe. The Court: You take a given acid, and you run it for three minutes, you get a different inhibition than you do if you take the same acid and run it for three hours, don't you? A. That is correct. I have a chart of the inhibition against time, Your Honor. The Court: All right. I follow that. Now, we will say you get 17.8 if you run it three minutes, and we will say that you get 69.03 if you run it for three hours? A. Yes. The Court: Is it correct to say that acid is acid of a certain per cent inhibition, and say nothing more? A. No. We have got to describe the tests, and we have tried to do that. The Court: If you put it in an iron tank and haul it for three minutes, you get a different result than vou do if you put it in an iron tank and haul it for three hours? A. You get a different result. The Court: Would it be correct to say that the acrd 786 Dr. Carl F. Prutton you put in a tank had the same inhibition, and stop there? A. The acid is the same. The Court: I know. Now, don’t misunderstand me, I am just talking about how to taik about this thing, and how we have been talking about it, and get it on the record. I understand exactly now that it is going to eat more, the longer it is in there. JI understand there are other things entering into it. I want to know whether it is correct to say that the acid had the same percentage of inhibition, if you put one in a tank and haul it for three minutes, and you put the acid in another tank and haul it for three hours. Is it correct to say—is it correct to use that term, that it has got the same inhibition? A. No, I would not use it. I would describe how long it was in the tank. The Court: Well, in this record you will find that that is done. I am trying to get it clearly on the record, but you can’t use that expression with reference to acid. It is only when you state all of the elements, according to your testimony, is that right? A. That is correct. The Court: It depends, too—you take the same acids, and vou take different kinds of iron—you go to two differ- ent places and get iron, and you put one into one vat of this same acid, and you put the other into another vat of the -ame acid, you get different results—your iron is different? A. Somewhat different, yes. The Court: Then it is not correct to say that you take acids of the same percentage of inhibition, is it? A. No, not without explaining the tests and the results. The Court: They have got different inhibitions, be- cause you have used them differently? A. The popular conception of the term ‘‘inhibition’’ is— The Court: Oh, I know, but I want to know just how wrong we have been in using the definitions here. We should not apply it to the acid when we get to percentages. You ean say it is inhibited, that it is capable of inhibition? A. Yea. wn The Court: But when you get down to percentages, you must not say it any more, is that right—we must stop 787 Dr. Carl F. Prutton using it? A. With reference to a certain figure. You have got to define conditions, and the popular use of the term ‘‘inhibition’’ is an erroneous one. The Court: Well, I take my acid, and I haul it in a wooden tank, nothing else touching it, only the wood— what is its inhibition? A. lf I am to answer it, the-way I would report inhibition— The Court: Now just wait a minute. ] did not take it /out, I didn’t do anything with it. A. I would say that you would have to take the acid out of that tank. The Court: But I didn’t take it out. You can’t take it out of that tank. I have put it in there, and I keep it in there twelve hours, and I haul it all around. Now, I want to know whether it is inhibited, or not. A. And you take some out and test. The Court: You have got to take it out and put it in with iron? A. Absclutely. The Court: Then you can’t tell how much, except that you state how long and whether it was agitated. They are just as necessary as those who describe the acid. A. Not quite. The Court: How can you state percentages, one with- out the other elements# A. You can’t. The Court: If you keep it in the wood and don’t let it touch anything else, what is its inhibition? A. You have got to run a test. Mr. Lyon: The percentage of inhibition vou get by that test will be different if you have two different kinds of iron that you tested on? A. It will be somewhat different. The Court: All I am bringing out is now that the way we have been using the percentages don’t apply to acid and the stuff that is in it. The percentages apply to the acid, that stuff that is in it, the time that is used, the agi- tation, and all the elements that figure into it, and it is only as to those results, in other words, that it applies, and that result and that percentage in the result is contributed to, | understand that fully now, and vou don’t need to worry about that, it is contributed to by fhe acid and it is *on- 788 \ Dr. Carl F. Prutton tributed t centages \ by the time, but whenever you use the term per- u are talking about results and not about the things that ‘go in to make the result. A. That is involved in it, but it M not the sole factor. , The Court: But you mustn’t apply the percentage over to time? “A. No, sir. The Court: You mustn’t apply percentages over to agitation? A. No, sir. The Court: You mustn’t apply percentages over to the acid?) A. Not alone. The Court: Not in inhibition now. Of course, you couldnt apply it all the time? A. You have got to take them altogether. The Court: But when you come over to talking about percentage of inhibition of corrosion I must not apply that to the acid at all, and I must not apply it to whatever is put in as an inhibitor. All right. Now, we have got that, I think, clear on the record. A. It is a method of compar- ing acids under similar conditions, and that is all. I would like to answer the questions raised in that letter. The Court: You mustn’t say an acid is a certain per cent inhibited because no chemist is wise enough to de- termine that. Doctor, given a quantity of acid, you can’t analyze that. A. Not without specifying the conditions. We can analyze it chemically. The Court: Yes. But you are dealing with a proposi- tion and you have used the definition as such after you have analyzed that you can’t say it is a certain per cent inhibited. A. Not unless you make tests. The Court: And then you get results cepending on the condition. A. And comparison of one solution with the other. The Court: Then it isn’t comparable. Most things you take an analysis, you tell how much it is with this per- centage. A. We have these chemical analyses. We say there is 1% lead. We determine absolutely. That is fixed on the sample. The Court: Yes, I get that. You tell me the in- 789 Dr. Carl F. Prutton gredients in it but when you talk about per cent inhibition ~ you are not talking about the ingredients. A. No, talking about the performance of it under a definite test condi- tion. The Court: Then why don’t we agree you are talking about results and not ingredients. Don’t you agree with that? A. The ingredients contribute. Mr. Lyon: All right, doctor— A. (interposing): May I explain the letter?’ We got sidetracked on the dis- cussion. Q. I will finish my part in a few minutes, and I will give you an opportunity then to explain, or they can. The Court: I want to give you a full opportunity, doctor. A. Yes. Mr. Lyon: I am going on with this, and it is not going to interfere, at all, I am sure. Mr.-Lyon: Doctor, when you reported the results of — your tests to the Dow Company, you simply reported, did you not, the actual values that you found in the first in- stance?. A. Why, I believe so. I always report results as to what I find. | ®. I mean the result, the measure— Mr. Owen (interposing): I suggest that the witness be shown the letter that you are referring to. The Court: Yes; he is entitled to see it. Mr. Lyon: Yes, if there is anything he wants to see. A. What are you askiny about? Q. Iam asking a physical fact now. A. The physical fact is that I report to a client sometimes in letters and preliminary statements, I report preliminary reports, and then finally when I get through summing up all the work that has been done, I arrive at some definite conclusion as to the results of the work and I report that. It has been referred to in the correspondence here. Q. What I am getting at is this, doctor, these tabula- tions, such as PX-189, of the kind that were brought here, you did not prepare those at all? A. No. Q. They were prepared by the Dow Company? A. Yes, that is correct. 790 Dr. Carl F. Prutton Q. You were asked to include tiem in your report? A. Not in my report. Q. In Exhibits 184 and 185? A. Well, it is not bound in my report. They brought those charts in, and we checked the figures on them. Q. Now, doctor, the various tables that were included in your report, those were also prepared by the Dow Com- pany, were they not? A. Absolutely none of them. They were all prepared by us. Q. You prepared these reports and submitted them to the Dow Company, but as they appear in Exhibits 184 and 185, they have been completely re-written from when you first presented them to the Dow Company, have you not? A. I presented interim reports, by just reporting whatever came at hand, to try to give them a picture, and letters were written as to little changes that might have been made, or little differences. Q. You say they were only little things. Weren’t you asked to leave out some things? A. There were a lot of. smal! tests that were made, of various kinds, and in making the final report that was breught in here, and which I don’t think we submitted as a display or an exhibit, but was taken in as an exhibit, that was written, specifically going at one particular object, not to include all of the little miscel- laneous things that we arrived at on the side, or— Q. (interposing): I am going to ask you if this is one of the letters that you received from Mr. Rebbeck with ref erence to the data or the report after you had submitted it. This is dated July 18, 1941, addressed to you, and signed by Mr. Rebbeck, on the stationery of the Dow Company (handing the document to the witness)? A. That is a letter that was sent to me, and we revised the report in line with this, and, as I recall, before that letter was written to me, I had had a brief conference with Mr. Rebbeck in Midland, in which he just went over this, there were a number of typographical errors, and we went over the form in which the final report was to be prepared. Mr. Lyon: I will ask that this letter be marked DX- 224. Pad 791 Dr. Carl F. Prutton (The letter above referred to was thereupon marked DX-224.) Mr. Lyon: I will read this to Your Honor, it isn’t long. I will read the first part of it. “DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, July 10, 1941. **Dr. C. F. Prutton, ‘‘Case School of Applied Science, ‘Cleveland, Ohio. ‘‘Dear Dr. Prutton: _ “*Subject: Changes in ‘Memorandum reports on Halli- burton-Dowell case’ June 20, 1941. ‘*Mr. Owen has reviewed the subject report and would like the following changes made. Will you please retype the pages to be changed and furnish us with copies for our reports? ‘“‘The changes to be made are as follows: ‘*First, number all the pages beginning with the title, ‘The Effect of Pressure on the Corrosion of Steel by 15 Per Cent Hydrochloric Acid containing Inhibitors,’ but omitting the memorandum of report entitled ‘The Effect of Crude Petroleum Oil on the Corrosion of Oil Well Tub- ing by 15 Per Cent-Hydrochlorie Acid.’ With this section omitted, the title page ‘Small Scale Tests That May Be Used To Demonstrate the Effect of the Menaul Process’ will be numbered. 5. ‘*Revise the table of contents by omitting the second item, namely, ‘The Effect of (rude Petroleum Oil on the Corrosion of Oil Well Tubing by Fifteen Per Cent Hydro chlorie Acid.’ ’’ Then there follow several pages of changes. IT guess I will have to put them all in, as the witness has attempted to deny the latest report in existence that this letter men. tions. (). The first of these letters asking you to revise your report, and also stating—I think I will read the letter so you can identify it. This letter is dated July 9, 1941, from you to Mr. Rebbeck, is it not? A. From Rebbeck to me. Q. You received that letter, did you? A. Yes. 792 Dr. Cart F. Prutton Q. I will ask that this be marked DX-225. (The letter above referred to was thereupon marked DX-225.) Q. The next letter is—well, on the same subject there is another letter of the same date, is there not? A. Yes. Q. You received that letter? A. Yes, I received that letter. Mr. Lyon: I ask that this be marked DX-226. (The letter above referred to was thereupon marked DX-226.) Q. The next letter is the letter that I have already read, which is DX-224. I have already read that. The last letter is a letter dated July 11, 1941. Did you reezive this letter from Mr. Rebbeck? Tid you? A. Yes, sir, that is correct. Mr. Lyon: This will be DX-227. (The letter above referred to was thereupon marked DX-227.) Q. With reference to these letters, or this last letter, DX-227, that is the letter in which Mr. Rebbeck suggested to you the use of average of averages, and the averaging of various tests for determining what 100 per cent corrosive- “ness is, and the various matters that are involved—he worked out this per cent of corrosiveness and asked you to - adopt it. You didn’t do that, isn’t that correct?) A. As I said, as I recall I met Mr. Rebbeck some time in June, and I think Mr. Owen was there, and Mr. Conner, and these changes were discussed, and this method of representing the results. These are not any faked-up results. It is just a different way of writing the results, changing from per cent inhibifion over to this reduction in corrosiveness, a different way of expressing the results. I saw no valid reason as to why it could not be done, and they said, ‘*We will caleulate your results, and you check them, and we will have the figures made up for you.’’ And that was the way it was done. Mr. Lyon: I don’t think that it is necessary to* read each of these letters if they are here, Your Honor, except 793 Dr. Carl F. Prutton I will indicate as to DX-225. It says: ‘‘Subject Correction to Report Entitled Large Seale Test of Menaul Method of Acidizing Oil Wells dated June 20, 1941. Mr, Owen has re- viewed the subject report and proposes that you make the - following corrections or changes and that you retype each page requiring such changes or corrections, furnishing us with the retyped pages for each of the copies of this re- port.’? And then there is tabulated as to what he wants done. DX-226 starts out the same way—‘‘Subject Changes to be made in the report entitled Corrosion of Oil Well Tubing by 15% hydrochloric acid June 20, 1941’’—these changes ure made after the date that appears in exhibits 184 and 185. The date of the report is June 20, 1941. ‘‘The follow- ing changes are propose as a result of the review of the subject of this lawsnit’’— The Court: When did we start this lawsuit? Mr. Lyon: July 21st. Then the letter contains 2" pages of changes. I have read from DX-224. DX-227 is the last one, dated July 11, 1941, and reads: ‘Dr. Prutton, for the purpose of consiructing charts, summarizing your findings as to the corrosiveness of commercial hydro- chlorie acid to which you added iron, lead and copper, I have made some calculations reducing this data to rela- tive corrosiveness as follows’’—and then includes prepara- tion of these things. I mean his method of calculating these things. This is signed by Mr. Rebbeck to this wit- ness. The letter conciuded: ‘‘It will be desirable for you to be familiar with the origin of the figures appearing on ~ the proposed charts, and for that reason T have given you the methods used in computing them. In addition, there is enclosed herewith a typewritten form which will represent substantially the layout of the completed charts. I believe you should check the computations to be sure that the fig- ures are right. If you find any errors, please immediately advise. Mr. Rebbeck, Patent Department.’’ Now, the purpose of this is so Your Honor will under- stand and distinguish in this testimony between what was 794 : Dr. Carl F. Prutton this witness’ experimental data and what is the ferm in which it is reported, and whose idea and whose responsi- bility the form of the reporting is. I think that is all the cross-examination. REDIRECT EXAMINATION By Mr. Owen: The Court: Now, Mr. Owen, don’t forget to give the doctor the opportunity that I very earnestly promised him. Mr. Owen: I will try to, Your Honor. The Court: I want him to have every opportunity. Mr. Owen: With the character of the cross-examina- tion, Your Honor, it makes it necessary for me to*review to a considerable extent what Dr. Prutton did in preparing his work in connection with this case. The Court: TIT will leave that to you. Mr. Owen: I am going back to the time when the matter of this work was first referred to you, Doctor. Can you tell about when that was? A. The earliest recollection I have is late in the summer of 1939. Q. And was that in a conference or by letter, do you recall? A. Just in a conference and discussion with Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Rebbeck. Q. And thereafter what, if any, tests did you make prior to the time you made these pipe tests in which you built the duplicate Menaul tank? A. Well, I made no tests before we started in on this large seale work. The discus- sion that I had with Mr. Rebbeck and Mr. Chamberlain was that in connection with this case that Dr. Bartell had certain things to perform, and one of the jobs that some- body had to do was to make something other than a little piece of steel in a beaker, and run some tests to indicate what would happen in an oil well tubing under conaitions that should be fairly well reproduced, and reported, and that would fairly well represent what might happen in running down the tubing of an oil well. and that these tests also should include an examination of just how this Menaul! 795 Dr. Carl F. Pruitton 2 process functioned, and what part of the reduction of cor- rosiveness was due to the Menaul process. Q. Well, now, in your direct examination, you referred to three different kinds of tests, as I recall. Two of them , were laboratory tests, one set of which used little 'strips of iron, and in the other set of which you used one-inch sec- tions of this same oil well tubing which you used in the larger tests. Now, in respect to time, what was the relation between your laboratory tests and your large scale tests? A. The laboratory tests that we finally adopted, and which are reported in the report as being comparable with the large scale tests employed a time of three hours for the test, gpd the time of the large scale tests was three hours. Q. Well, that is not exactly what I had in mind. I am trying to get fixed in the court’s mind the relative dates on which you conducted these three different series of tests. The two laboratory series and the large scale? A. Well, we started in to run the large scale tests and—those were the first tests we ran—and associated with the large scale tests we started testing the inlet acid with this laboratory test, using a very small specimen of steel and a very small volume of acid for a very long time of contact, thirty hours. Q. And then, as I understand it, your first laboratory tests were made in connection with the acid you were using in the large seale tests? A. That is correct. pe Q. Isee. Now, before you started this large scale tes work, did you outline any program and submit it to the members of the Dow organization who were interested in this matter? A. Following the first talk that I had with— there may have been more than one with Chamberlain and Rebbeck—they had indicated about in general what their problem was and they questioned whether Dr. Bartell, with the time available, and so forth, would be able to get around to make these large scale tests. I think they had that in mind when I first talked to them, that he would do the large scale work and the small seale work as well, that is, the analytical work. And, as I recall, they expressed some doubt as to whether he would get around to do it. And I 796 Dr. Carl F. Prutten said if they wanted me to and thought it advisable that I would be glad to undertake those tests. And at the final meeting of those preliminary discussions they said, ‘‘ Well, you write up what you think ought to be done and let’s talk it over again.”’ And I wrote that up and that is ineluded in this com- plete file of correspondence, a complete outline of what I thought ought to be done to examine, to ascertain and determine the reduction in corrosion caused by copper and lead in acid; in passing through a piping system, in de- termining whether the Menaul process had any effect on reduction in rate of attack of acid upon steel, whether the effect you obtained with a Menaul tank was a combination of the inhibitor effect plus the Menaul effect. And the tests that were outlined ineluded first a run- ning of blank or fifteen per cent commercial hydrochloric acid through a fairly good length of oil well tubing. Seec- ond, to run the fifteen per cent acid into this simulated Menaul tank, agitate it for some time that would roughly approximate what agitation would be obtained in handling the acid from the storage tank to the well, and then operate the Menaul process on that acid, that is, to deliver the acid into the tubing and-connect the wite up from the tank to the tubing and see what effect that had upon the rate of attack, whether it was reduced over the raw acid that went in with- out the Menaul tank. And the next type of test was to run the acid from a stoneware crock: directly into the Menaul tank and im- mediately out, so that we would eliminate this inhibitor 829 Dr. Carl F. Prutton described this before. We varied the copper from about two, a little over two to about four parts per million, the lead from around 200 to 500, and the iron from about 400 up to 1300 or 1400, and over that range of compositions the inhibiting action or the reduction in rate ofsattackas found to be around 60 or 70 per cent. Now, in our large scale, we got from 65 to 80 per cent, approximately, and we felt that this difference could pos- sibly be explained by the velocity. And then we ran this check of length of time of contact on the samples, and we found that the reduction in rate of corrosiveness was almost constant between about ten minutes and aboui fif- teen hours or so, and it started to fall off at the end of that. Q. That is the curve you are going to prepare? A. That is the curve I am going to prepare. And the con- firmatory nature of that test, with the large seale test, which we duplicated as close as we could in the laboratory, that is, in the small seale laboratory test, indicated to us the validity of our large scale test, and so the two agreed, in our opinion. And so, on the basis of that, the coneli- sions that were reached, I have expressed already, that the acid containing from 2 to 4 parts per million of copper. and from several hundred parts per million to 500 parts per million of lead, and 500 to 400 to 1300 of iron, in the form of chloride, that that acid, under the conditions of these tests, and apparently from a study of the effect of some of the variables under quite a range of variables and time of contact, gave us an appreciable amount of inhihi- tion or reduction in rate of attack of the acid upon stec! oil well tubing. Q. Now, T have a note here, Doctor. that vour pre- liminary report of March 1st, 1940, in which vou report on the first five runs, made no reference to vour Run No. B which is one of the discarded runs. A. Ves. That B was never even calculated, because we knew we didn’t have sufficient data on the entering acid. Q. Now, in connection with the Gardner affidavit, von testified that you made some tests following the disclosure 829 Dr. Carl F. Prutton of Figure 1 of the Menaul patent, and that you got low petentials similar to those referred to in the Gardner affi- davit. A. We ran such tests in the laboratory, inserting a strip of steel and a strip of lead into hydrochloric acid of various concentrations contained in a beaker, similar to the sketch shown in the Menaul patent, and determined with a potentiometer the potential difference between the two strips of. metal. Q. And that compared favorably with Gardner? A. ! would consider it a favorable comparison. I think we had quite a diseussion about some differences there, but I think they are in substantial agreement. (). I want you to state whether the results of your-—— of those test [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386404_0119%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.