|
SPE CENSORSHIP AND FRAUDULENCENovember 2019 The Society of Petroleum Engineers has become a fraudulent organization. Below are our posts from SPE discussion groups correcting incompetent claims and practices that SPE moderators censored, breaking most of our engineering ethics, and acting criminally. They are covering up their support and contributions to incompetent and fraudulent technology, including many SPE Technical sections and courses, with this censorship. They knowingly promote fraudulent and non-existent technologies while censoring any comments noting or proving it. They conspire with socialist governments and fraudulent academic and other fraudulent scientific organizations to promote the CO2 emissions global warming scam, with full knowledge and proof that it is a scam. This is one of the greatest crimes being committed today. See https://www.coatsengineering.com/substantiation.htm, and https://www.coatsengineering.com/Sustainability_and_CO2.htm, and https://www.coatsengineering.com/ccus.htm (from when the scam was first proven by us 5 years ago). This page represents our compliance with all engineering ethics including our primary responsibility to protect the public from technical fraudulence and crime. From Gayl Tobias To Brian Coats Sent Fri, 25 Oct 2019 04:57 PM Subject Decline message from connect.spe.org Thank you for participating in the Society of Petroleum Engineers website connect.spe.org and for being part of our community. Your content below was received and sent to moderation for review. Upon review, we have determined that the content violates SPE Connect Guidelines, and has therefore been removed from the site. The SPE Connect Guidelines establishes participation rules and guidelines to ensure the best possible experience for all members. If you have any questions, please contact the Member Services Department at SPEConnect@spe.org We appreciate your participation and cooperation in ensuring a positive community experience for all members. Regards, The SPE Connect Moderation Team Subject:RE: How Does the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Differ for Conventional vs. Unconventional Plays? Message: Obviously, linear or nonlinear regression are not AI nor ML and any claim that they are is fraudulent. All of the fluid characterization programs have used nonlinear regression programs for many decades to tune eos parameters to match experimental results of all kinds. I may be wrong but I think the simulation industry was the first to develop non-linear regression. At JS Nolen I think it was Jim Nolen and Rod Grisham that wrote ours, called EOSPAK, sometime around 1980. I added a few experiments for VIP-THERM while at Landmark. I think it's still the only thermal compositional reservoir simulator. Claims that weighting determination or optimization was done by AI are false as far as I know, in any of the industry's regression programs. Since neither AI nor ML exist, their use is no different for any plays. They have no use at all. Regards, Brian ------------------------------ Brian Coats Coats Engineering ------------------------------ Original Message: Sent: 10-18-2019 10:55 AM From: Jeff Baldwin Subject: How Does the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Differ for Conventional vs. Unconventional Plays? How does the use of linear regression differ for conventional vs. unconventional plays? Linear regression is machine learning (ubiquitously held opinion). Machine learning is artificial intelligence (so say many). Linear regression is artificial intelligence (as a consequence). Original Message: Sent: 10-08-2019 11:49 AM From: Shahab Mohaghegh Subject: How Does the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Differ for Conventional vs. Unconventional Plays? How Does the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Differ for Conventional vs. Unconventional Plays? SPE Data Science and Digital Engineering in Upstream Oil and Gas https://pubs.spe.org/en/dsde/dsde-article-detail-page/?art=6062 ------------------------------ Shahab D. Mohaghegh Professor; Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering West Virginia University
From Gayl Tobias To Brian Coats Sent Tue, 05 Nov 2019 11:48 AM Subject Decline message from connect.spe.org Thank you for participating in the Society of Petroleum Engineers website connect.spe.org and for being part of our community. Your content below was received and sent to moderation for review. Upon review, we have determined that the content violates SPE Connect Guidelines, and has therefore been removed from the site. The SPE Connect Guidelines establishes participation rules and guidelines to ensure the best possible experience for all members. If you have any questions, please contact the Member Services Department at SPEConnect@spe.org We appreciate your participation and cooperation in ensuring a positive community experience for all members. Regards, The SPE Connect Moderation Team Subject:RE: Data_Science Message: Hi Gowtham, AI and ML do not exist. See https://www.coatsengineering.com/artificial_intelligence.htm. Data is not a science. It's an academic blunder and a disgrace. It is the simplest part of all of the real disciplines of math and science. There is nothing new in data science that we haven't known about data for decades. It used to be called data processing and was not a very attractive position. Those using the term 'data science' are pretending to have developed something new. Regards, Brian ------------------------------ Brian Coats Coats Engineering ------------------------------ Original Message: Sent: 10-28-2019 02:12 AM From: Gowtham R Subject: Data_Science
Hi to all,
I'm new to AI/ML. I'm preparing on my own (still now learned python basics and basics of ML). Could anyone show the light to the path of data science especially in the petroleum field? and share what are the essential knowledge to get hired in the company.
Thanks in advance. From Gayl Tobias To Brian Coats Sent Tue, 05 Nov 2019 12:04 PM Subject Decline message from connect.spe.org Thank you for participating in the Society of Petroleum Engineers website connect.spe.org and for being part of our community. Your content below was received and sent to moderation for review. Upon review, we have determined that the content violates SPE Connect Guidelines, and has therefore been removed from the site. The SPE Connect Guidelines establishes participation rules and guidelines to ensure the best possible experience for all members. If you have any questions, please contact the Member Services Department at SPEConnect@spe.org We appreciate your participation and cooperation in ensuring a positive community experience for all members. Regards, The SPE Connect Moderation Team Subject:RE: Combined CO2 and Surfactant EOR to reduce the MMP. Message: CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with climate change! How can any competent scientist or engineer possibly think that a trace gas CO2 composition of .0004 can have any significant effect on climate? Saturated water composition is about .04 near the water surfaces and varies wildly in the atmosphere (.01-.04), of course with storms, and is fifteen times more powerful a "greenhouse" gas than CO2, per molecule! CO2 is called a greenhouse gas because it's plant food and encourages plant growth. Increased CO2 is good for all plant and animal life on earth! Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction!!! So what do you think happens when we kill off more than 50% of plant life on earth by poisoning our oceans and deforestation and urban development? Exactly what is happening, is the answer. All competent scientists know that CO2 does not cause warming, warming causes increased CO2 because our waters are a giant sink and when temperature increases, CO2 is released into the atmosphere. I'm an expert on that as I added the CO2 solubility in water option to the only fully compositional thermal model ever developed, VIP-THERM. We wrote a SPE Journal paper on it in the 90's. Also see our web page on "sustainability". Can you please answer the question John? Thanks, Brian ------------------------------ Brian Coats Coats Engineering
Original Message: Sent: 11-04-2019 11:49 AM From: John Tingas Subject: Combined CO2 and Surfactant EOR to reduce the MMP. Patrick, this discussion began asking the question if miscible CO2 EOR can be achieved in reservoir where the MMP is higher than the rock mechanically maximum allowable pressure then reducing the MMP by surfactants as miscibility enhancement agents and highlighting that if laboratory experiments confirm their use, surfactant will be a practical cost-effective more efficient option to the already know alternatives of H2S, ethane, propane, etc. Indeed, "miscible WAG" does not necessarily recover oil by achieving zero interfacial tension between the petroleum liquid phase and the gas phase. Also, "Miscible WAG" does not necessarily achieve zero interfacial tension between the aqueous liquid phase and the liquid petroleum phase or the gas phase. Consequently, for this reason, field cases of CO2 EOR achieved historically petroleum recoveries lower than the expected by efficient miscible petroleum displacement by CO2. "Miscible WAG" could be partially immiscible even at average reservoir pressure above the MMP and the reservoir recovery processes may not be miscible in the entire reservoir, because the reservoir pressure may be lower than the MMP in parts of the reservoir. Hence, miscibility enhancement agents, possibly surfactants, increasing the difference between reservoir pressure and the MMP will be useful providing a guarantee that the miscibility will be achieved and it will prevail everywhere in the reservoir. The additional big question is if the reduction of the interfacial tension between CO2 and the liquid petroleum phase will convert multiple contact CO2 miscibility to first contact CO2 miscibility. Again, in this case, experimental work will answer this question. John Tingas
Your content below was received and sent to moderation for review. Upon review, we have determined that the content violates SPE Connect Guidelines, and has therefore been removed from the site. The SPE Connect Guidelines establishes participation rules and guidelines to ensure the best possible experience for all members. If you have any questions, please contact the Member Services Department at SPEConnect@spe.org We appreciate your participation and cooperation in ensuring a positive community experience for all members. Regards, The SPE Connect Moderation Team Subject:RE: Combined CO2 and Surfactant EOR to reduce the MMP. Message: The way to optimize any project is to maximize npv. See our "goals" web page. ------------------------------ Brian Coats Coats Engineering brian@coatsengineering.com Original Message: Sent: 11-04-2019 11:49 AM From: John Tingas Subject: Combined CO2 and Surfactant EOR to reduce the MMP. Patrick, this discussion began asking the question if miscible CO2 EOR can be achieved in reservoir where the MMP is higher than the rock mechanically maximum allowable pressure then reducing the MMP by surfactants as miscibility enhancement agents and highlighting that if laboratory experiments confirm their use, surfactant will be a practical cost-effective more efficient option to the already know alternatives of H2S, ethane, propane, etc. Indeed, "miscible WAG" does not necessarily recover oil by achieving zero interfacial tension between the petroleum liquid phase and the gas phase. Also, "Miscible WAG" does not necessarily achieve zero interfacial tension between the aqueous liquid phase and the liquid petroleum phase or the gas phase. Consequently, for this reason, field cases of CO2 EOR achieved historically petroleum recoveries lower than the expected by efficient miscible petroleum displacement by CO2. "Miscible WAG" could be partially immiscible even at average reservoir pressure above the MMP and the reservoir recovery processes may not be miscible in the entire reservoir, because the reservoir pressure may be lower than the MMP in parts of the reservoir. Hence, miscibility enhancement agents, possibly surfactants, increasing the difference between reservoir pressure and the MMP will be useful providing a guarantee that the miscibility will be achieved and it will prevail everywhere in the reservoir. The additional big question is if the reduction of the interfacial tension between CO2 and the liquid petroleum phase will convert multiple contact CO2 miscibility to first contact CO2 miscibility. Again, in this case, experimental work will answer this question. John Tingas e-mail: ------------------------------ J. Tingas Petroleum Engineering Ltd Putney, London SW15 6HZ e-mail: Skype:
From Gayl Tobias To Brian Coats Sent Tue, 05 Nov 2019 12:08 PM Subject Decline message from connect.spe.org Thank you for participating in the Society of Petroleum Engineers website connect.spe.org and for being part of our community. Your content below was received and sent to moderation for review. Upon review, we have determined that the content violates SPE Connect Guidelines, and has therefore been removed from the site. The SPE Connect Guidelines establishes participation rules and guidelines to ensure the best possible experience for all members. If you have any questions, please contact the Member Services Department at SPEConnect@spe.org We appreciate your participation and cooperation in ensuring a positive community experience for all members. Regards, The SPE Connect Moderation Team Subject:closing discussions on unsubstantiated claims Message: Dear Moderator, (Please don't post this) I made 2 replies to Dr. Mohahegd's post of his article, can you please allow them and restore discussion? Dr. Mohahegd is consistently making completely unsubstantiated and false claims, and refuses to provide any substantion of any of them, even when asked (on many occasions here and on the old Simtig). I believe that this represents violations of our codes of conduct and our basic responsibilities as engineers and scientists, which include the ability to properly substantiate the publicly claimed achievement of any improved solution, by the simplest possible known example. Those who refuse to substantiate their claims are no scientists or engineers at all in my opinion, and should be banned from making any contributions in our technical discussions (and literature). If you will allow my comments, the truth will come out and at least this particular problem of allowing false and inappropriate claims in posts with no provision for discussion will be solved. This is even more important with the problem of unsubstantiated claims in published papers, since in theory they can be discussed here and the truth can be found by applying the scientific method that has mostly been forgotten, as I continually try to demonstrate. If you don't restore discussion and add my comments, I request that you remove Dr. Mohahegd's post that is embarrassment to engineering and in my opinion is fraudulent and highly damaging to our industry, technology, and ethics. I think I may suggest that those who refuse to substantiate their claims properly be banned from any making posts in SPE discussions. Thank you, Brian Coats
From From: Brian Coats |
© 2000 - 2019 Coats Engineering, Inc.
|
