SPE CENSORSHIP IV

December 2020

This page represents our compliance with all engineering ethics including our primary responsibility to protect the public interest in matters related to our work.

The Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) has again decided to censor substantiated opinions that are counter to common perceptions, practices and assumptions, and to many published claims and productions, and to the existence of a number of its technical sections and courses.  The letter below was received on December 14, 2020 from the SPE President.  The posts that have been censored appear below the letter.  Below that is documentation of several previous periods of censorship by SPE on the same issues.  Many posts in many SPE technical discussions over many years have demonstrated proper use of reservoir modeling and critical issues of true sustainability that are counter to many industry perceptions and practices.  None have violated discussion rules.  SPE is supporting invalid theories, practices, and technology by censorship, justified through support of the fraudulent complaints of members.  SPE is actively and intentionally working against it's stated mission  "To collect, disseminate, and exchange technical knowledge concerning the exploration, development and production of oil and gas resources and related technologies for the public benefit; and to provide opportunities for professionals to enhance their technical and professional competence." The greatest issue is the co2 emissions global warming scam, which is destroying the oil industry, all of our economies, and the environment.  The reliability of our literature has been lost due to complete ignorance of the scientific method by authors and publishers, and by the refusal to even recognize it or allow its demonstration in discussions.  This has resulted in extreme incompetence in engineering and science, and is allowing and promoting the greatest technical  and financial mistakes ever made by mankind, with a cost to the people tens of trillions so far and accelerating, while actually harming the environment.  See Requirements for Substantiation, and the discussion that first resulted in our censorship by SPE many years ago at Let's Fix The Peer review Process.docx.

Mr. Brian Coats                                                                                              12 December 2020

Censored Posts

SPE Carbon Capture, Usage, and Sequestration Technical Section

Submitted: Dec 8, 2020 10:22 AM (distributed by email in Carbon Dioxide Capture, Utilization & Sequestration Digest for Tuesday December 8, 2020 prior to removal)
From: Brian Coats
Subject: SPE Virtual Symposium: CCUS and Contaminants Management 7 - 9 Dec 2020

Mohamad,

How is the conference going? Is it recognized that CO2 is not a pollutant and is the source of all life, and that increasing it is the key to sustainability? CO2 has nothing to do with global warming. That ridiculous idea is destroying our industry and the world.
Real sustainability of our industry, economies and of all life on earth requires that we increase co2 concentrations to increase the rates of endothermic photosynthesis and food production and natural cooling. See disproof 2 at Disproofs of the CO2 Emissions Global Warming Theory . Disproof 1 is that the 'greenhouse effect' is false - insulation does not cause warming, and on earth the cooling effect during the day is far greater than the warming effect at night, because the incoming light intensity is so much stronger than outgoing ir! Dispoof 12 is that all have been fooled into thinking that co2 absorbs any significant ir wrt water, by ignoring compositional effects. The figures in all papers falsely claiming that it does show co2 absorption measured at 33.3% (as in NIST database ir absorption spectrum) when the actual concentration is close to 0.04%! See the solutions that competent ecologists were giving 10-50 years ago at Sustainability and CO2

The real explanation for global warming is very simple - it's due to destruction of plant life. I've estimated that the warming due to lost photosynthesis is only about 1.5-3% of that due to lost transpiration, so the latter is responsible for most of the warming we're seeing in the Northern Hemisphere. Dave Cummins, a retired Chevron engineer has offered an alternate explanation that makes much more sense, and explains all of the observations. Development has resulted in Urban Heat Islands occupying 2.1 million square miles with 90% in the northern hemisphere. The coriolis effect separates climate in the hemispheres. So the loss of plant life is mainly heating the northern hemisphere and melting the north pole. His explanation that he has given me permission to share is at Climate Change, The Real Explanation .

Regards,
Brian

------------------------------
Brian Coats
Coats Engineering
Disclosure: We develop and market commercial reservoir simulation software
------------------------------

Original Message:
12-02-2020 12:57 AM
Mohamad Hamdan
Subject: SPE Virtual Symposium: CCUS and Contaminants Management 7 - 9 Dec 2020

Hi everyone,

In case some of you haven't received the news, we are going to have a virtual CCUS symposium in this month, on 7-9th December. Further information can be found in the link below, or from the SPE event web page.

https://www.spe.org/events/en/2020/symposium/21sm01/ccus-contaminants-management

Thanks,

Kamal

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPE Production Technical Community

Submitted: December 9, 2020
From: Brian Coats
Re: Scale modeling prediction software

Eric,

I was only suggesting modeling any known reactions and not assuming anything regarding our abilities in characterization, as their specifications in a reservoir model are completely arbitrary and relatively simple. Produced water analysis would essentially be history matching data for the reservoir model. It's composition (vs. time!) is evidence and a result of the occurring reactions and reservoir flows, reservoir and fluid properties, initial and boundary conditions, etc. Input data consists of injected and initial water composition distributions including any needed components. A single well prototype model would probably be sufficient for investigating detailed effects of chemical treatments near injectors but you're right that if there are important reactions or processes occurring in the wellbore that's much more complicated, but could be handled with a gridded wellbore model that represents capacitance (those are very, very slow because the time scale of changes in variables is much, much smaller!).

Regards,
Brian

------------------------------
Brian Coats
Coats Engineering
Disclosure: We develop and market commercial reservoir simulation software
------------------------------

Original Message:

Dec 9, 2020 7:28 PM
Eric Gagen


Mr. Coates - I agree that what you have described is a reasonably complete analysis. The question I was responding to was in the context of a request about methods for analyzing the produced water for scaling tendencies. My response and yours also are attempts to illuminate many of the other factors (besides produced water properties) which must be taken into account to get a more complete understanding of the potential issues which might take place. Based on the way in which the question was answered I didn't assume that any attempt to account for these other factors had been considered yet.

------------------------------
Eric Gagen
Principal
epgsolutionsco.com
------------------------------

 

SPE CENSORSHIP

November 2019

Below are our posts from SPE discussion groups correcting incompetent claims and practices that SPE moderators have censored.  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 claim no position on the issue but act in agreement with other organizations on the assumption that CO2 emissions are causing global warming, with full knowledge and proof to the contrary.

See https://www.coatsengineering.com/substantiation.htm, https://www.coatsengineering.com/Sustainability_and_CO2.htm, and https://www.coatsengineering.com/ccus.htm (from when the co2 scam was first proven by us 3 years ago).

This page represents our compliance with all engineering ethics including our primary responsibility to protect the public interest in matters related to our work.

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. 

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:
Linear regression is definitely NOT MACHINE LEARNING OR AI.  They do not exist.  That's why Dr. Mohaghegh cannot substantiate any of his claims with an improved solution to any known problem.  As competent engineers and scientists, if a claim can't be demonstrated we must assume it is false.
Also see "What are Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning" at https://www.coatsengineering.com/artificial_intelligence.htm .

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
------------------------------

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

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

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

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: Brian Coats
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 12:49 PM
To: 'Gayl Tobias'
Subject: RE: SPE Short Course - Python for Petroleum Data Analytics

Gayl, why did you remove my post on AI and ML?This is the opposite of what I was hoping for in resolving this.

Regards,
Brian

From: Brian Coats
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 10:52 AM
To: 'Gayl Tobias'
Subject: RE: SPE Short Course - Python for Petroleum Data Analytics

Gayl, I suggest that you have the technical directors reconsider their position on covering up
fraudulence rather than eliminating it, while doing extreme harm to our industry. I don’t think the
directors would like to have that be public knowledge, would they? I have discussions on LinkedIn on these subjects now because your moderation prevents me from having a conversation at SPE. Many thousands of views now. If I add this email I’ll bet it will hit 10k. Please confirm that the directors wish to be accused of unethical behavior since the public is apparently the only possible way to charge them with fraudulence and extreme violation of our ethics causing extreme damage to our industry.

When I find them I’ll ask them that same question to their face. I doubt that any will admit to being fraudulent.

Regards,
Brian

From: Brian Coats
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 1:47 PM
To: 'Gayl Tobias'
Subject: RE: SPE Short Course - Python for Petroleum Data Analytics

But they are not the ones who have heard my complaint of ethical violations, are they? Should those be directed elsewhere?

Thank you,
Brian

From: Gayl Tobias [mailto:gtobias@spe.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 1:36 PM
To: 'Brian Coats'
Subject: RE: SPE Short Course - Python for Petroleum Data Analytics

Dear Brian,

The Technical Directors are members of the Board of Directors. As referenced in my original email, they are the ones who made the determination on the discussion thread.

Best Regards,

Gayl Tobias
Member Program and Services/IT Coordinator
Society of Petroleum Engineers

222 Palisades Creek Drive
Richardson, TX 75080-2040 USA
www.spe.org


From: Brian Coats
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 2:19 PM
To: Gayl Tobias ; shahab
Subject: RE: SPE Short Course - Python for Petroleum Data Analytics


Hi Gayl,

This is entirely a technical debate. I have proven everything I say and can substantiate it. You always terminate technical debates when it becomes apparent that technology that SPE supports and condones is absolutely fraudulent and is causing extreme harm to our industry.

I would like to file a complaint with the Board of Directors based on violation of the SPE Code of Conduct and the NSPE based on your suppression of the truth with respect to technical issues, which is an obvious violation. And also I suggest that fraudulent members be expelled from SPE. Previous Board decisions regarding unethical behavior by SPE employees claimed that these ethical guidelines don’t apply to SPE employees regardless of whether or not they are members or professional engineers. I highly disagree with promoting and protecting absolutely false claims and fraudulent behavior by members or by SPE employees. Refusal to substantiate a public claim should be grounds for expulsion from SPE, and I claim and have proven over many years that Dr. Mohaghegh refuses to substantiate his false claims. You are covering up fraudulence and promoting incompetence by not allowing open discussion of it.

Regards,
Brian Coats

From: Gayl Tobias [mailto:gtobias@spe.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 1:09 PM
To: shahab; brian
Subject: Re: SPE Short Course - Python for Petroleum Data Analytics

Dear Shahab and Brian,

The discussion thread on the subject SPE Short Course – Python for Petroleum Data Analytics has come to the attention of the Technical Directors. The Technical Directors have determined that “this argument has turned into a personal debate. It is clear that the sides will not come to a resolution and there is no more value for the members to continue the current discussion. From this point on, their continuing posting on the same thread will be removed.”

Thank you for your cooperation.

Best Regards,

Gayl Tobias
Member Program and Services/IT Coordinator
Society of Petroleum Engineers

222 Palisades Creek Drive
Richardson, TX 75080-2040 USA
www.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

Your post does not follow the below guidelines:
- Keep your messages succinct. Avoid lengthy and repetitive posts.
- Ensure your posts are relevant to the topic at hand -please keep topics technical as this is the reservoir community. Non-technical discussion can be conducted in the Open Forum.

We appreciate your participation and cooperation in ensuring a positive community experience for all members.

Regards,

The SPE Connect Moderation Team

Subject:RE: Wall Street Journal Article on "Fracking's Secret Problem-""

Message:
​Dear Mr. Booker,

There is no secret problem in the productivity of tight shale wells.  There is a huge misperception by the SEC and just about all analysts who believe or pretend to believe in the ability of the oil industry to predict future production from mostly unknown systems.  A reservoir model containing millions of gridblocks has millions of unknowns.  No one realization of those unknowns will ever give a reliable prediction of future recovery, especially since future economic conditions are completely unknown.  The oil industry's real problem is all of the ignorant who believe that anyone can predict the future.

The purpose of reservoir engineering is not to predict the future.  It is to optimize the variables that we can control to maximize production at the lowest possible cost and with no harm to the environment.  CO2 emissions are plant food and are not causing global warming and are not harming the envioronment in any way.  Plastic is another story, and must be regulated to force recycling at great penalty, and a bounty for trash collection at sea must be enacted to start to reverse our greatest environmental problem - dumping trash and toxic chemicals in our waters.

We can demonstrate automatic optimization of operating strategy (well placement and control) for any reservoir including consideration of uncertainties but it must be highly upscaled in order to run quickly.  Probabilistic optimizations require that we run large numbers of scenarios (a statistically significant set) representing the uncertainties on each iteration of the automatic optimization.

Any rules for reporting future production are completely incompetent and idiotic.  In what other industry does government require estimates of future production?  And what is the purpose?  There is no valid purpose, and all that this nonsensical regulation does is generate extreme cost to our industry with absolutely no benefit to anyone.  So this is the great incompetent and fraudulence that has been forced upon our industry by politicians and regulatory bodies who don't have a clue regarding how to efficiently produce energy, and all such regulation actually prevents it.  Why does government think that they can possibly know how to more efficiently produce energy or manage their business than the energy industry does?  That is socialist thinking, which by the way is illegal under the US Fifth Amendment.  Unnecessary government interference with our industry represents confiscation of private property without compensation.

We have computer models that demonstrate, for given realizations, that very tight fractured reservoir can be very profitable, but operating strategy like process and controls and spacings and times for depletion, waterflooding, wag (water alternating gas), and blowdown.  But most engineers don't know how to use that technology, and instead draw virtually meaningless decline curves that may satisfy any numbers required or desired by executives.  That incompetence results from the absolute incompetence of making any requirement for the prediction of the future with respect to anything.

Regards,
Brian

------------------------------
Brian Coats
Coats Engineering
------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 01-24-2019 08:21 AM
From: James Brooker
Subject: Wall Street Journal Article on "Fracking's Secret Problem-""

https://www.wsj.com/articles/frackings-secret-problemoil-wells-arent-producing-as-much-as-forecast-11546450162


I hope everyone has had time to read the January 2nd article. It's rare
that reservoir engineering becomes a mainstream issue and I just wondered
whether SPE has a position or should have a position regarding the potential
over-statement of Ultimate Recoveries and engineering ethics.


Jim Brooker

An email on censorship from the SPE CEO following unethical censorship and just prior to permanent ejection from the SPE LinkedIn Group due to our discussion of "Let's Fix the Peer Review Process":

From: Mark Rubin
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:39 PM
To: Brian Coats
Subject: RE: Complaint of ethical violation by SPE staff

Mr. Coats,

Under the LinkedIn Group Rules we state that “SPE reserves the right to delete any comment, discussion, post, or person from the group.”  I do not believe that there has been anything unethical about how the discussion has been moderated.  There are over 50 comments on the discussion of this topic, including over 25 that you have posted, that remain on the LinkedIn site.   

I will be happy to forward any additional information regarding your recommendations for the paper proposal process to the committee.

Regards,

Mark Rubin

From: Brian Coats
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:08 PM
To: Mark Rubin
Subject: RE: Complaint of ethical violation by SPE staff

Dear Mr. Rubin,

All of my comments are still being censored and blocked on SPE’s LinkedIn site.  I believe that this is an ethical violation.  Also, all those members who requested that my discussion be closed I believe are also guilty of those same ethical violations.  I believe that it is obviously unethical to prevent discussion of ethical issues.   Is there any ethical code that applies to SPE employees?  Are they authorized to prevent free speech on SPE’s discussion sites, at their discretion?

Also, regarding the proposals, I have very many more references and much more evidence to present proving the need for both Proposals.  Calling my discussion comments my “full comments” and ending the discussion, eliminating my input in these issues, would obviously be, and is, unethical.

Thank you,

Brian Coats