bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Guest Editorial: A Carbon Tax Would Be Good for the E&P Industry
Authors: Labastie Alain 
Published: October 2018

Guest editorial
A few weeks ago, a very passionate discussion took place within the SPE reservoir online community about climate change and global warming. The issues were, not surprisingly, about the reality of global warming and about the role of human activity. This was certainly the most passionate debate this online community has had for the past few years, with a lot of people denying either the concept of global warming, or the role of an anthropogenic (i.e., man-induced) effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
As I am not a climate scientist, I did not join the discussion. However, I have learned a few things on this subject by reading a lot of literature:
Climate analysis and modeling is extremely complex due to the number of parameters playing a role, and the importance of interactions between parameters (including higher-order interactions, i.e., interactions between interactions). Climate behavior is not intuitive and sometimes is counterintuitive. This makes simple “good sense” analysis very unreliable and often misleading. And there is some confusion between climate forecasting and weather forecasting.
SPE produces high-quality technical literature through our peer-review process. In the domain of climate science, there are dozens of peer-reviewed papers/articles stating that there is likely a man-induced impact on climate change, and not a single one stating the opposite. I mean peer-reviewed by reference organizations, not a group of friends peer reviewing each other.
For these reasons, it appears to me that climate change caused by an increasing greenhouse gas effect, mostly the result of carbon dioxide emissions, is likely, even if I have no absolute factual evidence for that. Most important is the fact that, globally, a growing and already important number of people, including the general public and decision makers, have the same opinion and related concerns. Also, this opinion is very widely shared within the younger generations. I had the opportunity as SPE president a few years ago to meet a large number of university students all around the world, and I have been very impressed to see the concern about climate change by the vast majority of these students. And the discussion in the SPE online community I mentioned earlier was joined mostly by experienced members and included few (if any) younger members. For those who want to persuade people and politicians that this is not an issue, it looks like the battle is already lost, and the policy of the current US administration cannot change long-term trends, although it may delay things a bit.
A consequence of all this is the development of “green” alternatives. I note that the meaning of “green” is unclear for many people: does it mean decreasing emissions of polluting agents, such as sulfur compounds, nitrogen oxides (NOx), fine particles, etc., all detrimental to human health? Or does it mean decreasing emission of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide? Or does it mean both?
Is the Permian Barreling Toward a Breaking Point?
Authors: Zborowski Matt 
Published: October 2018

The next year could spell trouble for operators producing oil in west Texas and southeastern New Mexico.
The Permian Basin currently has more crude than it can handle, and production there continues to grow at a steady rate month-over-month after surpassing 3 million B/D earlier this year, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration.
Pipeline takeaway capacity isn’t sufficient and won’t be until the second half of 2019. There aren’t nearly enough trucks or truck drivers to make up the difference, and any meaningful expansion of crude-by-rail transport is restricted by infrastructure and business-related constraints.
Both options are already competing with movement of equipment and supplies such as sand and water, demand of which has also grown—along with their costs—to support the continued production growth. Many operators in the basin struggled to generate positive cash flow even before the bottlenecks became an issue. Now, the price of the crude they’re producing is trading at a big discount vs. spot prices in Houston, near the Gulf Coast refining and export center; and Cushing, Oklahoma, the crude trading hub from which the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) price is derived.
The spread between Midland crude and WTI grew to double digits in May, spiking from roughly $1 a couple months earlier. If WTI prices were closer to where they were a year ago, the impact of the spread immediately “would have been significant for almost every operator,” noted R.T. Dukes, Wood Mackenzie US Lower 48 upstream research director. Fortunately for Permian operators, WTI prices have been much higher than the range of prices for which they budgeted coming into the year, minimizing the impact of the spread thus far.
But WTI prices aren’t guaranteed to remain that high, and differentials could grow—just look at the Western Canada Select heavy crude price, which has traded at up to a $30/bbl discount to WTI this year due in large part to transportation constraints. The spread forced operators such as Cenovus, Husky Energy, and Canadian Natural Resources to slow their oil sands production during the first quarter.
Permian operators are similarly being forced to examine whether continued growth over the next year is sustainable or even worthwhile. Their exposure to Midland spot prices varies, ranging anywhere from less than 5% to 50–60% of Permian production, said John Coleman, Wood Mackenzie senior analyst, North American crude oil markets. Most operators are in the 20–30% range, meaning there already has been a modest hit to cash flow, he said.
Consultancy Rystad Energy believes the Midland vs. Cushing spread will “stay very much depressed” into mid-2019 and “won’t be surprised” if it moves into the low $20s/bbl, said Artem Abramov, Rystad vice president, shale analysis. “Everything points to the situation getting worse and worse going forward.”
Someday Soon, a Computer Will Do the Report for the Morning Meeting
Authors: Rassenfoss Stephen 
Published: October 2018

There is one form of drilling automation that does not appear to alarm engineers: an automated daily report creator.
The feedback on a project to do just that was all positive when it was offered as a new application at a customer meeting put on by Moblize, a company that offers an online platform that makes it easier to manipulate and analyze data.
An app that generates and distributes a formatted report suitable for the morning drilling meeting is under development by the young company whose future depends on a growing array of tools to analyze and present data.
Automating the morning report is “high on our value creation ranking,” said Chris James, project manager, drilling, for Moblize. His thinking is that companies are paying the engineers supervising drilling projects a lot of money “so why should they be taking time out to be writing reports?”
The argument for computer-generated reports is also based on personal experience—James recalled his days managing drilling for a large independent where squeezing report writing into a day was a “nightmare.” Often, after it was done, something big happened that should have been in there.
The goal is to combine performance tables based on real-time data—which have been available since the start of the year—using software that automatically generates a professional-looking report integrating graphics and comments by those in charge. Delivery can be scheduled using email or posted on a website. The updated document can also be constantly accessible, serving as a performance dashboard.
That app is an example of Moblize’s business plan. It has brought on 40 exploration and production (E&P) companies as customers over the past 18 months using a personal approach in an intensely competitive business.
Moblize’s business plan was inspired by social media businesses built around communities of like-minded users who are loyal to a fee-based platform because it regularly offers new things that help them do their jobs as well as allowing them to use their software on it.
“Users in E&P companies are the consumer,” said Amit Mehta, the founder and CEO of the company, which is moving next into completions. He added, “We want to get to the point where engineers love to use it.”
The relationship and ease of use are critical because the performance metrics its customers want to track are not unique. It uses tracking-performance indicators ranging from connection times to downtime, from the rate of penetration (ROP) to the percentage of time spent sliding during directional drilling. The fact that cloud-based analytics need to be packaged in such a traditional format is a reminder that while digital analysis is growing, selling those ideas means still making a case for something at a meeting.
As one manager in the conference crowd said, “phase one is to put them [performance charts] in the morning report because that is the habit.”
Pulsed-Neutron Comparison of Open- and Casedhole Wells: An Alaskan Case Study
Authors: Carpenter Chris 
Published: October 2018

This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper SPE 190062, “A Pulsed-Neutron Comparison Between an Open- and Casedhole Well: An Alaskan Case Study,” by J. Burt, T. Zhou, D.A. Rose, R. Grover, S. Ahmad, and J. Nemec, Schlumberger, and J. Dunston, Hilcorp, prepared for the 2018 SPE Western Regional Meeting, Garden Grove, California, USA, 22–27 April. The paper has not been peer reviewed.
This paper compares the results of gas identification and lithology identification using pulsed-neutron spectroscopy in openhole and casedhole environments. Most pulsed-neutron tools are run after casing; this study provides a unique opportunity to examine the effect of casing on spectroscopy by comparing casedhole measurements to measurements taken in the open hole before the casing was run.
Introduction
Pulsed-neutron logging has evolved over the last 50 years, but the intrinsic physical measurements have remained unchanged, which means that operators cannot obtain a complete picture of the rock and fluids behind casing with conventional tools. However, advances in tool design and a new fast-neutron cross-section (FNXS) measurement provide for an alternative gas-identification technique. Gas in open holes is typically identified from neutron porosity and gamma-gamma density crossover. In casedhole environments, gamma-gamma density measurements are challenging because of the large casing and cement corrections needed. Previous gas identification in casedhole environments has relied on the formation hydrogen index (HI) or neutron porosity (TPHI) log and sigma.
In openhole environments, density and neutron porosity crossover is a typical gas identifier, but, in many instances, shale can mask the identification of gas. This is a common problem in some gas reservoirs in Alaska, and it leads to ambiguous interpretations about the gas saturation and potential producibility of different zones. Gas identification in casedhole environments is even more complicated because the density measurement is not commonly available.
The FNXS measurement responds primarily to formation atom density, for which most rocks, clays, and liquids have similar values. Comparatively, gas has a low atom density, and its presence will make the FNXS measurement read low. Thus, a gas pay zone can be differentiated from tight zones by the shift toward lower FNXS values. Also, the difference in FNXS between clean lithologies and clay is less than for sigma and TPHI, so FNXS, which is less affected by variable clay content, can be a more-robust gas indicator when variable clay is present.
Technology Focus: Subsea Hardware and Technology (August 2018)
Authors: Carpenter Chris 
Published: October 2018

Technology Focus
A long-standing truism is that ideas that change one industry dramatically often are the result of innovations from a different industry altogether. In the realm of subsea exploration and production, with its high levels of risk and expense, concepts pioneered or used elsewhere are positioned to initiate important advances, a fact reflected in the three papers chosen for this year’s feature on Subsea Hardware and Technology.
Paper OTC 28051 uses the strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat (SWOT) analysis technique often used in organizational and personal strategy-building to compare four different development concepts that hold promise for meeting the environmental and economic challenges posed by presalt fields in the Santos and Campos basins.
In its discussion of fiber-communications technology that has been widely used in other industries, paper OTC 27987 describes the search for optimal use of wet-mate connectors in subsea applications, stressing that the significant opportunities in data collection offered by this hardware are of limited value without rigorous quality control. Finally, paper OTC 29069 delves into the world of marine mining, where developments in artificial intelligence and robotics are redefining the roles of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). These innovations, including diverse aspects such as increased mobility and manipulation abilities and enhanced inspection capabilities for extended AUV missions, may increase cost-effectiveness while creating minimal disruption to the seafloor—innovations that will likely have a powerful echo in the oil and gas industry.
With hard work, the progress outlined in these three papers may help create a better balance between cost, production, and ecological stability in offshore operations. The papers illustrate the inter-dependence of both technological and environmental systems, a truth of which operators in all realms of the industry must remain perpetually aware.
Recommended additional reading at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org.
OTC 28992 Horizontal Well Placement in a Thin Heterogeneous Carbonate Reservoir Using Azimuthal Sonic and Resistivity Measurements: A Case Study From Offshore Abu Dhabi by Amr M. Serry, ADMA-OPCO, et al.
OTC 28562 Electric-Controls Technology: The Role in Future Subsea Systems by Sigurd Moe, TechnipFMC, et al.
Guest Editorial: Innovation - A Word We Throw Around
Authors: Baker Brad 
Published: October 2018

Guest editorial
“We are the innovation leaders.” “We are increasing spend on innovation.” “Hey, you’re innovative.”
In our industry, positive advancements turn to unquestioned trends, which are then embraced with a buzzword. Has “innovation” become the latest sales jargon where its true meaning and application have become convoluted?
As a reader of JPT, you will no doubt be dazzled by the latest technology developments and self-proposed innovations, for example, in completions, drilling, and petroleum engineering. But how many are true enablers to a new way of doing something or solving a real problem? Are we really innovating as an industry or merely applying a catchphrase to already tried and tested processes because that is what’s “in?”
What Does Real Innovation Mean?
In its classical sense, innovation is basically any new idea, process, or solution to a problem. So, in that respect, I guess our industry is very pioneering as there seems to be a relentless stream of new products, methods, and techniques hitting the market. However, the term has more recently been tagged to almost every new idea, whether purposeful or just a “nice-to-have” variant of an existing product.
For example, how long have we been talking about intelligent wells coupled with improved digital data to enhance reservoir recovery factors? How big have those innovative leaps really been, or are they simply small steps in a long journey to the solution? The ideas that bring significant changes are what we should be heralding and measuring as true innovation in our industry. I like to call this efficacious innovation—developing real answers to real problems that create a positive step forward.
Who decides what innovation is? In a sense, it is the end user and how important the new idea is to them. For example, when the clever engineers at Zenith invented the remote control for the television, was that really an innovative product or just a cool twist on an already simple process? For me, it is extremely innovative, but for my octogenarian dad, it is an unnecessary device for his lazy son.
Sometimes a nice-to-have novelty becomes an essential innovation as it drives different, unintended behavior and efficiencies. Some would say the remote drove the quickfire viewing pat-terns of today and the television industry built its programming around its ability to access a range of content at the press of a button.
For reservoir recovery today, it seems we are so focused on gathering data that we are missing the big innovation of making that information work to significantly improve low recovery factors. While we have figured out how to capture data, we don’t seem to know how to handle it.
Oilfield Service Patent Contests Get Heated
Authors: Zborowski Matt 
Published: October 2018

From the highest courts of the US judicial branch to the C-suite, contests involving patents have recently come to the fore in the innovation-hungry US oilfield services industry, even as filings and litigation have recently declined.
In the past few months, the US Supreme Court has ruled on two disputes involving oilfield services firms, providing guidance on the extent to which patent protection applies beyond US borders and reaffirming a controversial process by which a patent’s validity is reexamined. The decisions come as companies adopt a more tactical approach in their pursuit and defense of intellectual property (IP).
The most recent ruling, which came in June, found that Schlumberger’s geophysical services subsidiary WesternGeco could recover lost profits for infringement abroad of four of its US patents by rival Ion Geophysical. The technology in question involved control systems for marine seismic streamer steering devices, separately falling under WesternGeco’s Q-Marine brand and Ion’s DigiFin brand. Ion was shipping the components overseas to customers, which then assembled the technology for their own use.
The first chapter of the saga came in 2012 when a federal jury ruled in favor of WesternGeco in its infringement suit against Ion, finding that the practice caused WesternGeco to lose multiple survey contracts. The case was turned on its head, however, when an appeal by Ion resulted in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversing the lost profit award. A subsequent appeal by WesternGeco elevated the case to the US Supreme Court.
While Ion’s appeal was pending, the companies were involved in separate proceedings, initiated by Petroleum Geo-Services, that challenged the validity of the WesternGeco patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under a process called inter partes review (IPR). Challenged in the other US Supreme Court decision this year involving oilfield service firms, IPR is a procedure that takes a patent challenge to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rather than before a jury in a district court.
The PTAB invalidated the four patent claims that formed the basis for the federal jury verdict, and, upon appeal by WesternGeco, the Federal Circuit in May determined that three of the four patents were invalid.
Meanwhile, in the original case, the US Supreme Court in June ruled in a 7–2 decision that infringement did occur under Section 271 of the Patent Act—which covers the exporting of components for a patented invention for assembly abroad—and that WesternGeco was in fact entitled to lost-profit damages for infringement. The court determined that “the conduct in this case that is relevant to the statutory focus clearly occurred in the United States.”
In a subsequent statement to JPT, Schlumberger said it was “pleased” with the high court’s decision. “More importantly,” the company said, the ruling “reinforces our position that, as a technology innovator, we receive the full protection of the Patent Act against those who infringe US patents.”
Google Offers Insight Into Industry Data Possibilities
Authors: Jacobs Trent 
Published: October 2018

Enticed by the promise of billions of dollars in savings and production uplift, the oil and gas industry has paid heavy attention in recent years to the fast-paced development of big data and artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Budgets for this area of advanced computing software have exploded since the onset of the downturn, and now industry professionals want to know more than ever what success really looks like.
To share views on how the industry’s digital transformation is shaping up, top executives from Google, Shell, Encana, and Schlumberger will take the stage for the opening session of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (ATCE) in Dallas, 24–26 September.
This kickoff discussion will focus on the culture shift required to adopt big data tools, and how to effectively leverage a new workforce of digitally-enabled engineers and scientists that is beginning to fill the industry’s rank and file.
Darryl Willis, the newly appointed vice president of Google Cloud’s oil and gas unit, is a trained geologist who spent more than 2 decades in senior positions at BP. From the podium, he plans to share perspectives on the digital challenges and opportunities the upstream sector is currently faced with.
“Machine learning, data analytics, and AI thrive on lots of data,” and while the industry has plenty of that data, “it only uses a fraction of it,” he explained.
To start unlocking the value of this information, he said that companies must do things that include “liberating” data from their traditional silos while also ensuring they are in fact capturing high-quality data from their wells and rigs. These are just two of the big steps required to take advantage of the power of cloud computing, and by not taking them, future profits are at risk.
“Companies will either be a catalyst for change, or they will be a casualty of change,” said Willis, citing projections that say many of the globe’s largest firms are poised to be surpassed by newcomers as technological and economic disruption continues.
ATCE’s opening session will provide attendees a chance to hear about where the industry is making the right moves and seeing positive returns on its recent investments in digital technologies. One place that fits the bill is the Wamsutter tight-gas field in Wyoming, an asset that Willis used to be in charge of during his tenure at BP.
“Wamsutter was a very tough field to produce because it was 2,500 wells over 2,500 sq. miles,” he said. “The way we managed that field was by sending pumpers, out in trucks, to actually check on the health of the wells.”
But business-as-usual changed last year when BP hooked 180 of those wells up to an AI program developed by a Silicon Valley startup called Kelvin Inc. The success metrics from the pilot were highly encouraging: operating costs dropped by 22%, production increased by 20%, and gas venting was cut by a whopping 74%.