As I contemplate attending the Oct. 13 homecoming at Louisiana Tech University to be recognized as a member of the graduating class of 1957, I look back with fond memories. My experiences involving professors and classmates, particularly those in the Department of Petroleum Engineering (PE), are now a half a century old, but indelible in my mind.
On further reflection, however, even I have a bit of difficulty in appreciating the contrast between how petroleum engineers were educated then and now. So, what is the current level of undergraduate preparation? How should academic programs evolve to meet the ever-changing needs of the upstream petroleum industry?
My opinions are from the viewpoint of a petroleum engineer who earned a BS degree in petroleum engineering in 1957 and who has been in continuous professional practice since that time. I also have the added perspective as the grandfather of an enthusiastic young man entering Texas A&M University this fall to study petroleum engineering.
My comments are not intended to express a lack of respect for the dedicated, learned professional academic staffs in the various outstanding US and overseas universities with petroleum engineering programs. Indeed, I understand and appreciate their daily challenges with budgets, staff, equipment, and the university and government bureaucracies that continually limit their dreams and aspirations.
I refreshed my recollections by reviewing my college transcripts, and, sure enough, my 4-year degree plan required 145 hr of coursework with 0 electives. That included 19 hr in math, 25 hr in chemistry and physics, 11 hr in engineering drafting, and 5 total hr for pattern-making, machine shop, welding, and surveying. Civil engineering courses totaled 16 hr with 9 hr devoted to electrical engineering subjects.
I was required to take six geology courses plus labs for a total of 20 hr. My eight petroleum engineering courses combined for 26 hr of college credit. The remaining courses varied from mechanical and industrial engineering courses, English, technical writing, speech, and economics. I had no courses in humanities, business, or in statistics and statistical analysis.
Department constraints
PE departments across the US are caught in the squeeze between the politics of state governments and their universities for financial budgets, facilities, and curriculum control. Constraints similar to this are likely in non-US universities as well. The average 4-year bachelor of science PE degree now requires about 132 hr, a portion of which is dedicated to some of the “softer” subjects related to the humanities, government, and health. US-based ABET Inc. establishes minimum standards for engineering degrees awarded by US and some international universities. Several states, including Texas, continue to encourage its institutions to reduce their curricula to a maximum of 120 hr for 4-year degree plans. Students and parents may favor that reduction in time and effort, but this is not in the long-term interests of the industry or any engineering student.
Many curriculum plans are influenced by engineering advisory boards that typically consist of PE alumni who are active in the upstream and service industry and are willing to contribute their insightful views about industry needs and the talents most valued in new graduates. On the other hand, many alumni continue to believe their undergraduate degrees equipped them well for their industry careers and are reluctant to urge changes except for occasional technology updating.
My informal and largely unscientific survey of several US universities offering petroleum engineering shows how much (or how little) is expected of entering freshmen in areas of math, chemistry, and physics. The average PE student today takes about 24 hr in those subjects, whereas my curriculum required 44 hr. There are some professors today who believe many incoming engineering freshmen should be exposed to additional science and math fundamentals because of the declining emphasis and quality of instruction they received in many public high schools.
Several US universities now limit the number of entering freshmen because of space and faculty limitations. This is not necessarily good news for the industry but does allow these universities to select the best and brightest applicants.
The role of geology in PE degree plans continues to be reduced over time in most US universities to about 6-12 hr. Given the increasing requirement for geoscientists and engineers to work closely together in describing and “unlocking the secrets” of some of today’s challenging reservoirs, particularly the ones we refer to as being “unconventional,” that is a serious deficiency. The wealth of the petroleum industry is contained in these underground reservoirs, and we must continue our quest for better reservoir description and understanding. Undergraduate participation in integrated geoscience-engineering projects is useful and necessary to establish and demonstrate the interdependence between the two disciplines.
A collateral problem is how do we find individuals who have the background to develop and teach courses about unconventional reservoirs? More about the staffing concerns later.
Modifying curricula
A professor from one of the leading US PE universities told me the school has not made any significant changes to its curriculum in 15 years. This particular university continues to provide the fundamentals of science and engineering that its administrators believe a petroleum engineer should understand, all within the 4-year curriculum guidelines mandated by the state and approved by ABET.
However, other professors at this same university and other universities on other continents are strong advocates for a greater emphasis in teaching petroleum engineers to both recognize and “manage uncertainty.” Reidar Bratvold and Stephen Begg1 recommend that “a petroleum engineering program should introduce uncertainty and decision-making early to develop a thorough understanding and comfort with these topics. The focus should be on teaching the decision analysis and probability concepts most relevant to decision-makers and decision-analysts in the petroleum industry. Although there may be room for a traditional statistics course in the curriculum, the emphasis should be on courses taught by engineers that leverage relevant examples with a practical, petroleum-oriented focus.”
The authors, both of whom are respected academics, further say that “the uncertainty understanding thus developed at an early stage then should be used as a common thread through the entire set of subsequent engineering courses.” Again, the availability of qualified staff to accomplish this is a present-day limitation.
These observations and recommendations by Bratvold and Begg are fully appreciated by this writer, who has spent a career in estimating and evaluating petroleum reserves and resources while continually struggling with assessing the true range of both technical uncertainty and commercial risk associated with resource classification and categorization. Can we continue to produce top quality petroleum engineers in a traditional 4-year academic cycle? My belief is that we cannot. Universities across the US and other countries are working very hard to produce qualified young men and women to serve as petroleum engineers, and I applaud their noble and worthy efforts.
However, I believe industry and academia must come to recognize that the unique and expanding challenges facing the petroleum industry this century demand even better-trained individuals. Many would say that the industry-academia cooperation to which I refer is alive and well and has been for a long time. I refer to a recent statement attributed to John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., where he said “Just as the oil and gas industry faces the ‘great crew change,’ it is also gearing up to meet a rising global demand for energy. These dual challenges require many new engineers with next-generation skill sets-and their education will take creative thinking and unprecedented partnerships between industry and academia.”
According to data compiled by Lloyd Heinze, Texas Tech University petroleum engineering department chairman, undergraduate enrollments continue to grow, as shown in the table.
It clearly shows the impact of this spiraling growth rate on the undergraduate student-faculty ratio. This ratio cannot continue to expand without seriously impacting the quality of the graduating students and the continually increasing workload on the undergraduate faculty. The graduate programs seem to have a relatively constant student-faculty ratio, at least for now.
The chart on p. 20 illustrates the steady growth in US petroleum engineering students over the 5-year period ending in 2007. This contrasts with peak enrollment from around 1982.
Resolving dilemma
My suggestion goes far beyond the current level of industry-academia cooperation, advancing into a program where industry partners can and must become a vital part of the undergraduate program through university-industry designed summer intern programs. Students could earn 9-12 hr of college credit during a summer while providing meaningful work for his or her employer and earning income. The effective transfer of some of the basic PE courses in production, drilling, petrophysics, and reservoir studies (as examples) into a hands-on intern program would open university curriculum spaces during the academic year to incorporate topics such as (but not limited to) additional math and science fundamentals, uncertainty management, applied statistics, data management and “data mining,” advanced petroleum economics, finance, accounting, business law, and geopolitics. An added benefit would be the opportunity to augment the current undergraduate petroleum engineering faculty with nonengineering instructors and professors.
Under this proposed plan, a student can obtain a BS degree in 4 years while earning 150 hr. Some universities might consider awarding a master’s degree at this level or with only a few more credit hours. Certain universities might allow students to opt for the traditional 4-year degree or the expanded summer intern-college credit program.
This ambitious program cannot be accomplished overnight, as much work will be needed to develop the courses that can be effectively taught in an intern program and to obtain sustaining industry commitments to assist in this initiative. Many readers will simply assume this is too much trouble and will take too much time to create and manage. I believe we must give it a try. Some of our finest teachers are employed in industry, and many are willing to serve their company and their industry in a joint effort as described above.
The current and evolving university curricula have served to provide the US and the world with quality engineers for many decades, even though improvements are always necessary.
The most innovative undergraduate curriculum I reviewed is being developed by the University of Houston. UH has not offered a BS degree in petroleum engineering for about 30 years. The formal launching of this new degree plan at UH awaits final university approvals but has been endorsed by the current engineering dean and university provost.
Proposed courses make up a 130-hr curriculum that offers electives in nontraditional courses such as data mining and database structures, energy law, emerging technologies, optimization and control, and business simulation. A required leadership-and-entrepreneurship module consists of 9 hr in basics in finance, accounting, and economics; engineering effectiveness in modern technical environment; and project management.
Additionally, the module concept is included in three 9-hr modules in reservoir engineering, production engineering, and unconventional resources. Students will be required to complete two of these modules. This innovative degree plan grew out of dozens of interviews with industry leaders and a separate group of young petroleum engineers with 5 years or less industry experience.
Clearly, however, the curriculum could be strengthened even further through additional credits earned through a qualified summer intern program.
The Society of Petroleum Engineers2 reports 111 schools and universities offer education courses in petroleum engineering or related disciplines. These schools are distributed globally: North America 37, South America 22, Europe 18, Asia 23, Africa 9, and Australia 2.
Faculty challenge
Attracting qualified faculty is a major challenge as salaries and bonuses for new engineering hires and engineers already in industry are growing rapidly and far outstrip what universities can typically offer for younger staff members. There is no satisfactory answer to this, unfortunately, but industry grants-in the form of endowed chairs, other forms of endowments, structured fellowships, and funding of research projects-constitute the minimum level of support to be underwritten by the industry-a sector that desperately needs quality graduates and is the prime beneficiary of the program. The exploration and production industry has little obvious enthusiasm for grant programs. Companies seem more interested in contributing through scholarships and intern programs. I find it interesting that several of the very large integrated companies have a public position that they are adequately staffed, whereas my conversations with many of their employees paint a fairly grim picture about increased workloads and employee turnover.
As reported in a recent article, “Industry Working Together to Address 2007 Faculty Shortage,” 19 PE departments in the US had 42 faculty vacancies.3 The article also expressed concern about the “threatened cessation” of US Department of Energy funding for oil and gas research. The DOE now underwrites as much as 40% of the research conducted by professors and graduate students in PE departments.
Many US universities have benefited from time to time from invaluable contributions provided by adjunct professors, many of whom are actively employed in industry but are willing to contribute their professorial talents one or more days each week. Sadly, their compensation is not much more than gasoline money. No university can effectively create and effectively manage an undergraduate program staffed primarily by adjuncts. However, the students greatly benefit from those programs and genuinely seem to appreciate the efforts made by adjuncts to teach real-life engineering skills. This is only a partial solution because many universities are not favorably located, meaning close to metropolitan areas where petroleum engineers work in the upstream petroleum industry.
Distance learning through video conferences, internet, and possibly other means may meet the immediate needs of some companies, departments, or individuals, but this clearly is not a long-term solution for the primary education of petroleum engineering students.
Most large oil and gas producers and some of the larger service providers have training regimens for new engineering hires, but, in general, those programs are much less intensive than those of 25 or more years ago. Several industry professional organizations are redoubling their efforts to serve their constituencies and are increasing their roles in training beyond what the industry typically provides. Mentoring is a common practice in many companies, but its effectiveness is reduced if reduced staff numbers limit the time between mentor and mentee.
Industry must cultivate a skilled, young workforce of petroleum engineers to replace the retiring baby boomers. That requires sowing seeds for the future by supporting university PE programs through advisory programs to develop new course curricula. Industry also should support grant programs, internships, and adjunct teaching opportunities through volunteer efforts and financial subsidies. Participation requires breaking a myopic corporate mindset that demands results now. Current and future engineering students will become the lifeblood of the industry as oil and gas become harder to find and develop. Industry support of university PE programs now will show a high return on investment in the not-so-distant future.
References
- Bratvold, R.B., Begg, S.F., “Education for the Real World: Equipping Petroleum Engineers to Manage Uncertainty,” SPE No. 103339, September 2006.
- www.spe.org.
- “Industry Working Together to Address 2007 Faculty Shortage,” SPE Gulf Coast Section Newsletter, June 2007.
The author
D. Ronald Harrell is chairman emeritus of Ryder Scott Co. LP. He joined the consulting firm as a reservoir engineer in 1968, became vice-president in 1970, director in 1980, president in 1998, and chief executive officer in 2000. He retired as chairman in April 2006 after relinquishing his position as chief executive officer in March 2005. Harrell has managed reservoir engineering and geological studies worldwide, including property evaluations for acquisitions and divestitures, financing, reservoir management, gas supply analysis, gas storage studies, and litigation support. He graduated magna cum laude with a BS degree in petroleum engineering from Louisiana Tech University and was named its Distinguished Engineering Alumnus in 2002. He has been active in issues concerning reserve reporting requirements of the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Harrell is past chairman of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Oil and Gas Reserves Committee and currently sits on that committee as an observer. He is presently an SPE Distinguished Lecturer and will be recognized as an SPE Distinguished Member in November. His e-mail is [email protected].