OTC-25453-MS

Funding New E&P Technologies

Art J. Schroeder Jr., Energy valley, Inc.

Copyright 2014, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 5 8 May 2014.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the
written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
OTC Panel Session; Funding New E&P Technologies: At the end of the day, new technology is
only valuable if it can be successfully deployed; and this of course requires operator up-take or pull.
While operators and established service and manufacturing companies supply the bulk of new E&P
technology, a number of different organizations provide alternative funding mechanisms. This panel
session will examine six (6) funding organizations. The presentations and moderated discussion will
cover:
Present / current funding solicitation and evaluation process
Future technology needs and expected funding levels over the next ~ 3 years
How these needs and levels may have changed from the recent past
The good, bad and ugly of past solicitations; what do prospective awardees need to do well in the
solicitation process to be in the best position to secure funding.
Lessons learned from previously funded and executed R&D projects with examples of projects or
seed funding that resulted in commercial success or failure
Advice and guidance to budding entrepreneurs and start-up companies
Session Moderators: Opening introduction and scene setting
Brad Burke, Managing Director; Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship
Art Schroeder, CEO; Energy Valley, Inc.
Panelist:

DeepStar Greg Kusinski, DeepStar Director and Senior Advisor from Chevron

ITF Paddy OBrien; CEO

Research & Development Corporation Glenn Janes, CEO

RPSEA James Pappas, VP Ultra-Deepwater

Energy Ventures Jim Sledzik, Partner and President, Houston Office

Statoil Technology Invest Richard Erskine; Investment Manager

Each panelist will utilize about 10 minutes to cover their organizations basic mission and parameters
of operation, followed with approximately 1 hour of moderated panel discussion.

OTC-25453-MS

Figure 1Historic U.S. Crude Oil Production

Introduction
A secure world economy depends in large part upon reliable access to reasonably priced energy.
Achieving this objective requires a consistent and steady amount of over-supply and continual application of innovative technology, both of which present challenges. Global oil consumption in 1970 was
46 million barrels per day oil (MBOPD). By 2001 it had jumped to 76 MBOPD and today it stands at 89
MBOPD. Depending upon assumptions, many reputable organizations forecast liquid demand to continue
to grow and approach 120 MBOPD by 2040. From where will these barrels come?
With history as a guide, it is obvious that development and commercialization of new technologies will
play a large role in replacing depleting reserves and growing incremental production. A review of recent
U.S. results provide a clear picture of the role new technologies can play. According to the U.S. Energy
Information Agency (EIA) in 1970 U.S. production was 9.6 MBOPD. By 2008 it had reached a low point
of 5 MBOPD (see Figure 1). Today (Annual Energy Outlook AEO 2014 early release; 12/16/14) EIA
announced the United States average daily oil production is on track to surge by 1 MBO, the biggest
one-year jump in the nations history. The country pumped an average of 7.5 MBOPD in 2013, up from
6.5 in 2012. That breaks last years record, when oil production jumped by 837, 000 barrels per day
between 2011 and 2012. Their most recent projection is 9.3 MBOPD in 2015 which would be the highest
level since 1972. What is fueling this boom? According to EIA testimony1 to the U.S. Senate, The United
States is undergoing a dramatic change in domestic oil production. The rate of increase in domestic
production continues to surpass even the most optimistic forecasts of recent years. Domestic oil
production in the United States has increased significantly... primarily because of a rise in productivity
from oil-bearing, low-permeability rocks. Of course the technologies enabling this stunning growth in
production has been a combination of horizontal drilling and fracing.
So, what new technologies and / or strategies will be required to accomplish production growth in the
global offshore arena? Strategies such as effective and timely utilization of standards and standardization,
adaption of technologies proven in other industries and migration to oil and gas, more effective risk
management, better / more effective project management, and cooperative / collaborative partnerships are
frequently mentioned. These and other strategies will need to be coupled with new technologies in order
to;
1

Statement of Adam Sieminski, U.S. Department of Energy, EIA Administrator to U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, July 16, 2013.

OTC-25453-MS

Figure 2Historic U.S. Production from Shale and Other Tight Resources

extend the lives of existing hydrocarbon assets through operating cost reductions, operational
efficiencies,
most effectively grow reserves / reserve recovery factors and rate,
find, develop and produce new fields, and
accomplish in a safe and environmentally responsible manner
As this paper will not be addressing identification or implementation of potential strategies or
technologies to accomplish the above, the reader is encouraged to review numerous other OTC and other
venue papers and publications which do focus on this objective. Once the promising technology (ies) is
identified, the question becomes how to fund. Over the past decade several OTC papers and panels have
addressed this issue, some of which are listed in the references. The focus of the panel session and this
paper is to identify and discuss a number of funding options.

Historical / Traditional Funding

For most the industrys history, operators, particularly the larger ones identified and defined their needs
and then developed the technologies required to meet those needs. Power-house R&D facilities such as
Amocos Tulsa facilities, Shells Bellaire facility, Texacos Bellaire facility and many others housed
hundreds to thousands of the worlds smartest scientist and engineers who developed the technologies and
then field tested within their own operations. Service / manufacturing companies where then brought-in
to build, distribute, deploy. However, it is well known and documented that technology research and
development in the energy sector dropped dramatically during the previous decade2. With the consolidations and mergers of the 1990s and early 2000s, managers worked hard to deliver the promised costs
savings as well as production growth and income. Entire research facilities and technology organizations
were taken out. Part of the justification for the slaughter was the dismal return seen from R&D activity
in general. Part of the problem as identified in McKinsey & Co studies3 is that the typical commercial2
3

Simmons & Co. International; Schroeder, et.al. 2004 OTC 16985; Schroeder et. al. 2003 OTC #15056
McKinsey & Co. International; 2004 OTC #16985

OTC-25453-MS

ization cycle of new energy technology to be up to 30 years! Fracing and horizontal drilling are great
examples of technologies that have been around for decades but only recently (as discussed in the
introduction) have really paid-off. Additional rationalization with many operators resulted in pushing
technology development to the service / manufacturing sector. Of course, this strategy has been wrought
with additional problems; who decides the priorities for spending? How are pilots and field test
accomplished? How are the profits split on successful innovations? Who pays for the un-commercialized
R&D? Over the last decade, many of these questions have been addressed with varying degrees of
success.
Larger operators have grown their internal budgets as have the larger service and manufacturing firms.
BP 2012 Annual Report states that $674 million (M) on research and development (R&D) in 2012,
supporting business priorities across the portfolio. Halliburton reported (2011) Total R&D spend $401
M, Baker Hughes 2012 Annual Report stated Investment in Research & Technology at $497 M, and
Schlumberger reported Research & Engineering expenses, as a percentage of Revenue as follows:
2011 2.7% Revenue $39.5B $1B
2010 3.3% revenue $27B $891M
The panel and this paper will not be addressing traditional funding sources emanating directly from
operators and / or service / manufacturing companies. These entities typically fund (and control) internal
projects within their normal budgeting process. The focus will be to identify and discuss a number of
non-traditional funding options that may be particularly attractive for technologies emanating from
outside major operators and service / manufacturing companies.

Non-traditional Technology Funding and Acceleration

Over the past decade a number of non-traditional or alternative funding sources have developed. These
basically fall into two (2) categories; project based and corporate based. Funding in either category can
be dilutive, either directly or indirectly via IP ownership, royalties, restrictive use, etc. DeepStar, the
grandfather of project based technology funding, ITF based in the UK, RDC based in Canada, and
RPSEA for US grown technologies will be addressed by the panel. The panel also includes Energy
Ventures and Statoil Technology Invest which are two representatives of many independent and
corporate based venture capital firms which invest in companies (versus specifically defined projects)
which own promising technologies. Key messages from these entities will be covered in subsequent
section of the paper.
A bottoms up survey indicates a number of energy technology related startups companies are in the
trenches, attempting to attract funding and early customers. Just in the Houston area alone, some 23
companies covering a broad spectrum of promising new energy related technologies are currently working
under the Houston Technology Center (HTC) umbrella4. Many, many more technology based companies
are out there attempting to even reach the HTC level of critical mass. One of the main critical ingredients
for growth, capital, is often missing. Many of these companies have promising technology but quickly find
they must have more than ideas before they can attract meaningful capital. Their needs list include;
IP ownership
Technology demonstration and confirmation of operability
Confirmation of technology value or business case
Go-to market strategy
Management team
Business plan tying all the above together, and of course
Money
4

HoustonTechnologyCenter; www.HoustonTech.org

OTC-25453-MS

To address these many needs, a number of resources / organizations are available. Below is a short
listing of those serving the Houston region. Similar resources may be found in other areas.

Houston Technology Center; The largest technology business incubator

and accelerator in Texas
Named by Forbes as one of Ten Technology Incubators Changing the World, and as one of Twelve
Business Incubators Changing the World, the Houston Technology Center (HTC) is the largest
technology business incubator and accelerator in Texas, advancing the commercialization of emerging
technology companies in the greater Houston area. HTC serves as the nexus of new ideas, technological
innovation, and entrepreneurship. Each day, the staff and partners of HTC work closely with entrepreneurs
and startup companies providing them with in-depth strategic and tactical business guidance, fundraising
advice, and connecting them to opportunities, allies, and capital. As a catalyst for change, economic
growth and development, HTCs focus is to assist in the acceleration and commercialization of emerging
technology companies. Each company is treated individually according to their position in the Acceleration Pathway and their unique needs. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, HTC assists Houstonbased entrepreneurs within several key sectors: energy, information technology, life sciences, nanotechnology, and NASA/aerospace.
Energy is HTCs largest technology segment. According to HTCs Maryanne Maldondo, Vice
President & Managing Director, Energy Acceleration HTCs Energy Practice has a robust portfolio of
energy technology companies with unique capabilities varying from nanomaterial for oilfield service
applications to integrated solar and wind technologies. Each company is selected on the basis of their
disruptive technologies with the assistance of our energy industry sponsors, such as Chevron, Shell, BP,
ConocoPhillips, and others. Energy clients represent upstream, downstream, petrochemical, conventional, and renewable energy. Interesting statistics pertaining to the Energy Acceleration:
Acceleration Clients: 23
Total Client Revenue (2012): $ 21, 335, 000
Total Funds Raised (2012): $ 31, 037, 500
Total FTE (2012): 215
Statistics for HTC as a whole:
Total HTC Graduates (1999 2013): 86
Number of Companies Assisted (1999 2012): over 300
Capital raised by HTC Clients & Graduates (1999 2012):Over $1 Billion
Capital raised by HTC Clients and Graduates (2012): $174 million
Jobs created by HTC Clients and Graduates (1999 2012): 4, 595
Collectively, the Houston Technology Centers Clients and Graduates contributed $687 million to the
Houston economy in 2012.

MIT ENTERPRISE FORUM

MIT Enterprise Forum of Texas is one of 27 MITEF chapters around the world that promotes technological entrepreneurship. Many of the chapters have venture forums, mentoring, clinics, competitions for
startup companies, as well as educational programs. According to Dr. David R. Hansen, Chairman of the
MIT Enterprise Forum of Texas (Houston), Since Houston is very fortunate to have many active
organizations in the entrepreneurial space we focus on complimenting what the other organizations do and
we try not to duplicate what they do. For instance, our chapter does not have venture forums and
competitions like Rice Alliance, Surge, or HTC. We do not have long term mentoring like TIE, Score, U
of H Small Business Center, HTC, Surge, and HAN). We do not raise money like HAN or TIE. What we
do is have 7 New Venture clinics per year (one time mentoring) to help start-up companies improve their

OTC-25453-MS

Figure 3Start-ups at Rice Alliance Technology Venture Forums have raised more than $2.1 billion

business plan presentations and strategies so they will be more successful in raising money and be more
successful in their business. We also have programs on Technology and Entrepreneurship. In the last
three years examples of participating companies that related to the energy or oil industry were:
1. Zahroof Valves; A new valve for gas compressors which is more reliable and more efficient (less
energy loss)
2. Veros Systems; Monitors electrical consumption and power line feedback of motors to tell when
they are going bad or bearings are going out.
3. Ener Pol; A new more efficient fracking technology that uses less water (sand encapsulated in a
water soluble polymer that dissolves and then degrades with time)
4. Witco-usa; A very sensitive temperature sensing device lowered into lined and cemented drill
holes to determine if there are any hydrocarbons leaking around the cement job that indicate a
defective cement job and a dangerous condition.
5. CBM Enterprises; Wireless real time condition based monitoring for rotating and reciprocating
devices
6. Titralyte; A new efficient and extremely easy way of analyzing oil field water samples in the field
7. Smart Procedures; An easy to use internet system for procedures and training (using and
documenting)
8. Amalto; A paperless system (particularly for the oil field) for creating and processing invoices
faster, more accurately
9. GridX; Monitors for electrical transformers that communicate through cell phone data systems that
monitor the health of transformers and real time power usage and status.
10. Texas Energy Network; Advance wireless data systems for monitoring remote oil wells and
equipment

Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship (Rice Alliance)

According to Financial Times, Rice University ranks # 1 in the world for entrepreneurship and its Rice
Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship (Rice Alliance), headed up by Brad Burke, has helped
launch over 1000 new companies creating over 15, 000 jobs and raised a cumulative $2.1 billion in
funding in the last 10 years. (See Figure 3.)
Astoundingly, over 69% are currently in business or had successful exits. Oxane is one of multitude
of success stories. Rice professor Andrew Barron presented some interesting lab results at a Rice Alliance
meeting in 2002 when Chris Coker was in the audience. It didnt take long for them to get together and
develop a business model to commercialize the work. Oxane Materials manufactures and markets patented

OTC-25453-MS

proppants which economically augment oil and gas production (rate and total recovery) from shale and
other tight rocks while affording the opportunity to reduce the environmental impact of hydraulic
fracturing. Oxane has gone forward raising over $160 million with Chris leading the team of over 100
employees and recently being named to Houston Business Journals 40 under 40.
Another interesting example emerging from the Rice Alliance is OsComp Systems Inc. Its breakthrough compressor technology enables wet gas compression and decreases the energy required to
compress natural gas. Founded out of MIT, the company presented as part of the Rice Alliance 2010
business plan competition and was subsequently funded by Energy Ventures and Chevron Technology
Ventures. The company has located here in Houston and recently secured a research contract with from
the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA). Pedro Santos Founder and Chief
Executive Officer was named by Forbes as one of its inaugural 30 under 30 award in the field of energy
in December 2011 and exemplifies the entrepreneurial spirit.

SURGE
Surge is a Houston based incubator with a funding component now in its third year of operation. Class
1 received 400 applications, Class 2 over 500, and Class 3 received more than 600. About 40 of these
companies are invited to pitch in person for one of the 10 12 spots in per Class.
About 1/3 of the portfolio is outside the U.S.
In 2 years, 23 investments were made with 21 companies still operating.
Almost $25 million was raised in funding post-completion of the SURGE program. There were 3
Series As where the biggest raise was about $6M.
Surge startups landed more than 75 enterprise customers during the 3 month program (both classes
combined).
More than 100 jobs have been created by SURGE companies.
According to Kirk Coburn, Founder & Managing Director, Our biggest oil and gas success stories are
drillMap and RunTitle. Both have raised their Series A ($6.5M and $4M respectively). drillMap is a data
visualization analytics play for E&P operators and service companies. RunTitle has created the first online
marketplace for mineral ownership reports. SecureNOK which is more directly applicable to offshore
focuses on machine-to-machine cybersecurity solutions.

Key points from Mr. Pappas (RPSEA)

RPSEA Mission & Vision Statement
RPSEAs mission is to provide a stewardship role in ensuring the focused research, development and
deployment of safe and environmentally sensitive technology that can effectively deliver hydrocarbons
from domestic resources to the citizens of the United States. RPSEA is a multi-purpose entity established
to facilitate a cooperative effort to identify and develop new methods and integrated systems for exploring,
producing, and transporting-to-market energy or other derivative products from ultra-deepwater and
unconventional natural gas and other petroleum resources, and to ensure that small producers continue to
have access to the technical and knowledge resources necessary to continue their important contribution
to energy production in the U.S.
RPSEA is comprised of three (3) programs, Ultra-Deepwater Program (UDW), Onshore, and Small
Producer. The UDW mission is to identify and develop technologies, architectures, and methods that
ensure safe and environmentally responsible exploration and production of hydrocarbons from the
ultra-deepwater portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in an economically viable (full life cycle)
manner.
This mission of technology development encompasses:

OTC-25453-MS

Extending basic scientific understanding of the various processes and phenomena directly impacting the design and reliable operation of a ultra-deepwater production system
Developing enabling technologies
Enhancing existing technologies to help lower overall cost and risks
Pursuing new technologies which, if successfully developed, are capable of leapfrogging over
conventional pathways
Accomplishing these tasks in a safe and environmentally friendly manner.
Relevant 2005 Energy Policy Act definitions include:
Ultra-Deepwater a water depth that is equal to or greater than 1, 500 meters (~5, 000 feet). The
program also includes technologies applicable to formations in the OCS deeper than 15, 000
subsurface.
Ultra-Deepwater architecture the integration of technologies for the exploration for, or production of, natural gas or other petroleum resources located at ultra-deepwater depths.

RPSEAs UDW Program

Transforming ultra-deepwater discoveries into producing fields requires huge capital investment and new
technologies. RPSEA will focus on:
Extending basic scientific understanding of the many UDW challenges as well as developing
modeling and predictive tools to help industry better define and ultimately manage the risks
associated with field development and physical regimes of the resource base to support efforts in
the enabling and enhancing categories.
Developing new enabling and/or cross-cutting technologies that will allow industry to safely, and
in an environmentally friendly manner explore and transform these discoveries into producing
properties in ways that are impossible with existing technologies.
Enhancing technologies to help lower the overall cost and risks and reduce the field development
cycle time by improving existing technologies resulting in higher recoveries, lower thresholds of
abandonment, and development of currently uneconomic resources. It is instructive to note that
even in todays commodity price environment; many large (100 MM BOE plus) fields are not
economic due to the current cost of existing technologies and the high level of risk involved with
development.
Grand challenges transformational technologies which, if successfully developed, are capable of
leapfrogging over conventional research and development pathways.
UDW Goals and Metrics
The goal of Ultra-Deepwater Program (UDW) is to develop environmentally sensitive, cost-effective
technologies to identify and develop resources in increasingly challenging conditions and ensure that the
understanding of the risks associated with ultra-deepwater operations keeps pace with the technologies
that industry has developed. UDW will assess and mitigate the risk in offshore production activities
related to controls, safeguards, and environmental impact mitigation procedures in place during drilling,
completion, and production operations. Research topics may include:
Development of improved well control and wild well intervention techniques;
Evaluation of appropriate safeguards for BOPs, cementing and casing;
Evaluation of instrumentation and monitoring;
Improvement of flow assurance;
Expediting the completion of relief wells; and
Other topics associated with ultra-deepwater operations.

OTC-25453-MS

Figure 4 UDW Technical Advisory Committees

This goal was altered following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill in the GOM. While
the mission remains the same, the UDW Program will redouble its efforts to ensure that hydrocarbons are
safely extracted in an environmentally sound manner. As noted above, the Program will focus the
identification, analysis, mitigation of risks associated with development of UDW techniques and tools to
responsibly drill for and produce oil and gas in this environment. In short, the original mission to develop
the tools to reduce dependence on foreign sources via the GOM ultra-deepwater will be intertwined with
the safety and environmental sustainability requirements to ensure that future work can be performed
soundly with positive results. By doing so, the research and development performed under the UDW
Program will lead to greater public understanding and acceptance of future industry endeavors to unlock
and tap these precious reserves.
The UDW Program utilizes a Program Advisory Committee (PAC) and Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) in advisory roles. The PAC consists of upper level technical managers within operating
companies, service and manufacturing industry, and safety and environmental firms, as well as experienced academic researchers The PAC provides high-level input on program priorities, field areas of
interest and technology dissemination, as well as a link to the producer and research communities; but its
primary role is project selection. PAC engagement in the process is critical because:
The operators will be the organizations called upon to actually deploy and operate the new
technologies developed under the program
The service, supply, and manufacturing industry representatives provide a unique perspective
concerning development issues related to novel technologies
The safety and environmental concerns are fully aware of new developments and specific
technological gaps and needs within their areas of expertise
Academic researchers provide an additional link between fundamental and applied research that
can shed light on newer, promising, beyond the horizon technologies.
Supporting the PAC are six (6) TACs, each of which is focused on a particular ultra-deepwater
technology area (see Figure 4). In the past year the number of TACs has been reduced to account for the
restructuring and refocus of the UDW Program toward more of an environmental and safety area of
interest, as well as to increase collaboration and cross-pollination of certain functional knowledge areas.
The role of the TACs, with representation from subject matter experts (SME) who study and apply
ultra-deepwater technologies in real field situations, is to identify current technology gaps and define the
specific R&D efforts needed to address these gaps. As such, the TACs provide a bottom-up, end-userdriven program.

Key points from Mr. Sledzik (Energy Ventures)

Energy Ventures is an independent venture capital firm actively seeking early to mid-stage growth
investments in companies that deliver a marketable, proprietary product or service with potential in the
upstream sector. Headquartered in Stavanger, Norway with offices in Aberdeen, UK and Houston, TX,
Energy Ventures is located at the heart of the energy industry where technology innovation thrives. Since
2002 the firm has been involved in 3, 700 deals, made 37 investments and successfully exited 14
companies.

10

OTC-25453-MS

Figure 5Breakout by Sector of RDC Investment.

From initial investment to exit, Energy Ventures directly partners with portfolio companies to ensure
effective use of capital and expertise. The firm has a core investment mandate and looks for companies
with a proven technology or service with applications in the upstream E&P sector. Specifically,
companies that possess:
An innovative, proprietary, market-proven science or technology
Scalability with a true international potential
Experienced management team
Post commercial revenue status
Energy Ventures currently manages four funds with a combined total of $750 million in committed
capital. Investments range from $5-50 million, with a typical holding of 10 40% equity.

Key points from Mr. Janes (RDC)

The Research & Development Corporation (RDC) with offices located in St. Johns, Newfoundland and
Labrador, Canada was established in 2009 to improve research and development (R&D) opportunities in
the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. RDC is a provincial non profit crown corporation
operating at an arms length from the government with an independent Board of Directors. RDCs
mandate is to strengthen the focus, quantity, quality and relevance of research and development
undertaken in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and elsewhere for the long-term economic
benefit of the province and to encourage international collaboration. Key objectives are:
Enhance R&D capacity
X invest in highly qualified people, innovative research and world-class infrastructure
Increase industry relevance and economic impact of R&D expenditures
X support for academia-business and international collaboration
X RDC-directed program and project investments target priority areas: offshore petroleum and
ocean technologies required to operate in a harsh and cold environments
X Program examples: Arctic TECH Program (201214), Ocean Industries Student Research
Awards, PetroleumR&D Accelerator
Increase business-led R&D
X focus on local and global technology providers
Over $69 M have been invested in academic and business-led R&D projects over the last 4 years (over
350 projects of various levels). The current budget: $22 M/year which leveraged an additional $175M in

OTC-25453-MS

11

R&D project funding from industry and other sources. Figure 5. Shows a breakout of investment by
sector.

Conclusions
New technologies can and do make a huge impact on finding and producing more energy as demonstrated
in the U.S. with production from shale and tight formations. While the bulk of funding for new
technologies will continue to come from traditional (operator and large service / manufacturing companies) sources there is a growing bucket of non-traditional funding, both project based and corporate based
which will be available and of particular interest to the astute entrepreneur5. Of critical importance will
be the proper matching of funder with fundee; to ensure overall alignment of objectives. Incubators and
other mentoring organizations are available to help position companies to capture these funds and
successfully grow new technology based businesses. A panel of leading experts will present their
organizations funding model and provide insights regarding a successful match.

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank his panel colleagues and co-chair for their insights, participation and
contributions to this important discussion.

References
Schroeder, Jr., Art J.; Energy Valley, Inc. and Pena, Emil; former Deputy Assistant Secretary, US
Department of Energy: Accelerating the Commercialization of Deepwater Technology a Global
Overview OTC 14336 presented at the 2002 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX,
Schroeder, Jr. Art J., Energy Valley, Inc. and Warga, Arthur, University of Houston, Dean, Bauer
College of Business: Technology Commercialization; Trends and Strategies for Funding E&P Technology OTC 15056 presented at the 2003 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX,
Schroeder, Jr. Art J., Energy Valley, Inc.; Technology Commercialization; Trends and Strategies for
Commercializing E&P Technologies OTC 16985 presented at the 2004 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX,
Schroeder, Jr. Art J., Energy Valley, Inc.; Crisis in Technology: New Business Models for a New
Century OTC 17501 presented at the 2005 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX,
Schroeder, Jr. Art J., Energy Valley, Inc.; Technology Commercialization: Energy Policy Act 2005
Authorizes a Public Private Partnership to Facilitate Research, Development and Commercialization of
Upstream Technologies OTC 18411 presented at the 2006 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
TX,
5

Schroeder Jr. Art J.; Energy Valley, Inc.; The Next Wave and the next wave; World Oil, December 2013