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
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 mistakes ever made by mankind. 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
Mr. Coats:
Due to ongoing
violations of the SPE Connect Guidelines over an extended period of time, we
will no longer be able to provide you access to any SPE online communities.
This decision comes
after a thorough review of complaints that have been received from other
members regarding the disrespectful and repetitive nature of your posts. You
have been given many opportunities to abide by the guidelines, but your
failure to comply with them leaves us no alternative.
Tom Blasingame
2021 SPE President
DOWNLOAD
PDF
Preamble
Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this
profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of
honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the
quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by
engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be
dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that
requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.
I. Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
1. Hold
paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform
services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue
public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act
for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid
deceptive acts.
6. Conduct
themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance
the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
SPE has the claimed right to censor, suspend, or
expel any member for any reason. We believe that it should be applied
ethically and without discrimination.
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
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
|