Jan2009-Hardhats-and-Mortarboards

Hard hats and mortarboards: The industryand university working together Robert R. Stewart,* Don C. Lawton,** Gary F. Margrave,** and Laurence R. Lines**

*Dept. of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA**Dept. of Geoscience, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

40 CSEG RECORDER January 2009

Continued on Page 41

Abstract

University and industry goals can complement each other.Thus, there is considerable advantage to a university-industry partnership, especially in applied geophysics. Thisarticle discusses a consortium model for the collaborationand provides an example – the CREWES Project at theUniversity of Calgary. The mandate of the CREWES Project isto make better subsurface pictures to assist in resourcediscovery and recovery, and environmental mitigation whileeducating students and advancing geoscience. To make aconsortium work, there need to be natural advantages,ongoing demand, and demonstrated productivity. By effec-tive use of opportunities and advantages, consortia canp rovide well educated personnel, economically usefuloutput, and scientific achievements.

Introduction

A broad societal goal is to have a prosperous economy( p roviding interesting and profitable employment) thatsupports healthy social circumstances. Economies and soci-eties function by supplying services and goods to their popu-laces. Education is naturally required to train individuals toparticipate in these social and economic structures. Increasededucational attainment is also socially desirable because it isassociated with lower rates of unemployment, higherincomes (and higher tax revenues), better health outcomes,lower social welfare spending, and reduced likelihood offollowing-generation poverty (CalFASA, 2004). For example,the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, andGeophysicists of Alberta Value of Professional ServicesSurvey (APEGGA, 2007) indicates that, on average, eachuniversity degree adds several percent to total income (and,we trust, associated value to the workplace).

The university’s mandate is to create, conserve, and commu-nicate knowledge. On the other hand, industries arise todevelop and deliver products and services – to use knowl-edge for the direct benefit of society. Some aspects of univer-sity characteristics versus those of the industry, especially forthe geosciences, are shown in Figure 1.

So, there are different strengths and weakness of the twosectors and sometimes, different timescales. However, bothare dedicated to improving the state of the social enterprise.Thus, complementing collaborations between the two can bevery useful. The university has certain needs: students,funding, staff, data, outside advice, equipment, plus chal-lenges and problems to investigate. The industry can help insupplying these. Similarly, the university can provide welleducated graduates as well as contribute ideas, researchresults, and prototypes toward solving specific problems(Figure 2). Creation or invention can be quite distinct fromcommercialization (Schrage, 2004). Often, different structuresand attitudes are required for either to be successful. Majoroil companies divested themselves of much of their researchcapability (Cope, 2001) through the 1990s. Consequently,considerable research and innovation is expected to comefrom the service industry and universities.

University-industry relationships

The industry and the university can be associated in anumber of ways. These relationships might range from theinformal, small, and short-term to the contractual, broad, andmulti-year as follows:

F i g u re 1. Characteristics of the university versus industry in the geosciences. F i g u re 2. Innovation and re s o u rce recovery in the industry re q u i reexperts, novices, and appropriate technology and structures as can becontributed by the university.

January 2009 CSEG RECORDER 41

• Guest lectures, continuing education courses

• Consultancies, spin-off companies

• Sabbaticals (both ways)

• Adjunct professorships

• Senate, Advisory Boards

• Informal joint projects

• Donations

• Research contracts

• Consortia

All of these arrangements can provide benefit to both parties. Inthis paper though, we will discuss mainly the consortium struc-ture. We can define, “consortium” as:

• A cooperative arrangement among groups (www.thefreedictionary.com)

• An association or combination of institutions or businessesfor the purpose of engaging in a joint venture

• An agreement, combination, or group formed to undertakean enterprise beyond the resources of any one member(www.m-w.com/dictionary)

The university-industry consortium structure is similarly basedon an understanding or agreement among participants and willlikely involve a formal contract. However, the consortium hassome advantages over a specific contract between researchersand a single company. For example, the consortium’s work canpotentially be distributed to a larger audience with the possi-bility of greater impact. In addition, the sponsoring companies’fees can be smaller and pooled which lowers risk. Also, unto-ward changes in a single company's fortunes or personnel areless likely to be fatal for the whole consortium. Furthermore,there can be more and varied opportunities for interaction andoutput. On the other hand, research results from the consortiumwill be provided to all of its sponsors (and often eventually madepublic), so there may be less competitive advantage accruing to

a particular company. And communications with a group ofsponsors may be more complex than with a single company.

Making the consortium work is assisted by a number of factors.These can include having certain natural advantages in location,personnel, or local industries. There must be faculty leadership,significant industry interest, and university or governmentsupport. The consortium’s research may often involve new, butunproven high-potential technology. Innovation in the energyindustry is associated with some factors that are not under itscontrol – advancements in other fields as well as resourcedemand (Figure 3). So, researchers must stay alert to break-throughs elsewhere, in addition to being somewhat lucky withthe concurrent price of hydrocarbons. Ultimately, the consortiummust deliver results including significant ideas, reports, perhapssoftware and data, and a steady supply of enthusiastic andcapable graduates. Other aspects of a program which canencourage success are:

• A critical mass of researchers (that is, a team of full-timeprofessors, staff scientists, and visitors).

• Strong undergraduate and graduate program and students– B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D.

• Up-to-date equipment and software.

• Long-term administration, hardware, and softwaresupport staff.

• Requisite office, lecture, and lab space.

• Track records of excellence in research and ongoing development of highly qualified personnel (HQP).

• Regular contact with sponsors and consistent deliverables.

• Supply of industry data, projects, internships.

• Intense involvement in professional societies.

• Visibility (media, publications, meetings, courses).

The geophysics community

As mentioned above, the chances of achieving asuccessful partnership will be increased if certainfactors are present. Clearly, having the university andindustry in close proximity for meetings and courses,with similar laws and language, and informal sharingof expertise is of considerable benefit. In the specificCREWES (Consortium for Research in Elastic WaveExploration Seismology) case, the city of Calgaryprovides an excellent home for a geophysics consor-tium because of the strength, breadth and capabilitiesof its geophysics community. The Canadian Society ofExploration Geophysicists (CSEG) and CanadianSociety of Petroleum Geologists (CSPG) are headquar-tered in the city. APEGGA has a local office and theTulsa-based Society of Exploration Geophysicists(SEG) has had four Presidents from Calgary (Larson,2005). There are hundreds of energy companies,numerous seismic contractors, consultants and servicecompanies located in the city. Thus, Calgary is avibrant centre of geophysics and one of the top

Article Cont’dHard hats and mortarboards…Continued from Page 40


F i g u re 3. Innovation in the re s o u rce sector is associated with a financial demand pull, and anoutside technology push, in a culture that encourages inventiveness and application.


geoscience cities in the world, with hundreds of professionalgeophysicists.

Being close to an industry centre provides a natural job marketfor undergraduate and graduate students as well as staff. Theongoing interplay of education and employment gre a t l ysupports the continuity required by the consortium. Students area critical link between the university and industry – it may bethat newly graduated students are the best form of “technologytransfer”. Having a strong university is deeply beneficial to a cityas it attracts, educates, and can help keep expertise in its prox-imity as well as provide numerous other economic multipliers.

There is also a reverse mechanism that transfers people andexpertise from the industry to the university consortium. A flour-ishing consortium can provide an attractive second career forindustrial scientists who, feeling they have made their mark inindustry, are looking for a chance to use their substantial skilland knowledge in other ways. After a nominal retirement fromindustry, many talented scientists have joined CREWES andderived satisfaction from involvement in more fundamentalresearch and for the opportunity of mentoring of the next gener-ation of geoscientists. This mechanism benefits the broadergeophysical community by bringing those with the accumulatedwisdom into direct contact with those in training.

The CREWES consortium

The mandate of the CREWES Project is to conduct advancedresearch and education in geophysical exploration in partnershipwith the resource industry. The Project is specifically committedto developing seismic methods to understand, image, andmonitor the subsurface and its fluids. While the Project main-tains a traditional structure of professors and their individualgraduate students, stable consortium revenue enables the criticaladdition of support staff in administration, research, and tech-nical roles (Figure 4).

The Project is established inside the university with fundingl a rgely from outside of it (Figure 5). With CREWES, the majorityof the funding is from industrial sponsors (some 30 companiesengaged in petroleum exploration, including national oil compa-nies, super-majors, independents, seismic contractors, and soft-w a re companies) who pay an annual sponsorship fee. This fee isrenewable annually. While this is short-term for the Universityand provides annual stress, it makes a lower risk investment forthe industry and encourages timely production. CREWES alsoreceives significant funding from the federal government, under aCollaborative Research and Development (CRD) grant from theNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). Thegrant provides monies that match a portion of those contributed

by the industry. We believe that this matching protocol is wise onthe government’s part as it lets the technologies’ actual users (ormarket) regularly indicate if the re s e a rch is valuable. It is note-worthy that some consortia in other countries, unfortunately, donot receive such government matching support.

The full CREWES group (Figure 6) consists of some 50 individ-uals including six geophysics professors in the Department ofGeoscience, and a professor in the Department of Mathematicsand Statistics, at the University of Calgary, their associated grad-uate students (approximately 35), and twelve staff members. Thegroup meets once a week to receive a technical presentation fromits ranks and/or visitors. Students help realize CREWES goals aswell as undertake their graduate M.Sc. and Ph.D. programs. TheProject and university provide many opportunities for studentsincluding interesting classes and courses; research involvementwith excellent support staff, facilities, and data; and participationin meetings and conferences via presentation and publications.Reciprocally, the Project expects CREWES students to undertakeconscientious research in geophysical problems, achieve creativeand useful results, and strive for professional development andrespectful deportment.

The Project’s personnela re heavily involved inour professional org a n i-zations (CSEG, SEG,APEGGA, A u s t r a l i a nSEG, EAGE (Euro p e a nAssociation of Engineersand Geoscientists) andSIAM (Society ofIndustrial and A p p l i e dMathematics). This isessential for student and

s t a ff development, nurturing of our science and profession, anda w a reness of geophysical advancements.

A key aspect in the forging of a partnership between industry andthe university is the delivery of results. A n n u a l l y, CREWES spon-sors receive re s e a rch reports, software, data, and an invitation tothe Sponsors Meeting (typically attended by more than 60geophysicists from around the world). The meeting gives re p re-sentatives from sponsoring companies the chance to attendp resentations describing recent re s e a rch results, update theirtechnical skills at courses taught by faculty, interact with seniorre s e a rchers, and meet the next generation of geophysicists(CREWES has graduated some 100 Ph.D.’s and M.Sc.’s, most of



F i g u re 5. Financial support comes to the university consortia from a number ofs o u rc e s .

F i g u re 4. The structure of the the CREWES Project. There is the traditional faculty and graduate student component as well as perma-nent staff support.


whom were subsequently employed bysponsoring companies). A list of contribu-tions from CREWES to its sponsors (the“deliverables”) is given in Appendix I.

CREWES has been involved in interna-tional development and outreach proj-ects (Figure 7). Examples includetechnology transfers to ONGC (TheIndian national oil company), Petrobras,and Aramco and some associated univer-sities. CREWES faculty led the effort toset up Thailand’s first graduate school ingeophysics. Curre n t l y, CREWES non-confidential research results (data, soft-ware, reports and teaching materials) aredistributed publicly via the SEG andt h rough the Project website(www.crewes.org).

M o re specifically, CREWES is involved in under-standing the geology and petrophysics of re s o u rc etargets while developing characterization, recovery, andmonitoring methods associated with the re s o u rc e s(Figure 8).

In further detail, the technical goals of the Project are to:

• P rovide better structural images of the subsurface.

• Determine lithologic information (rock type).

• Describe rock properties (poro s i t y, fractures, p e r m e a b i l i t y ) .

• Estimate fluid content.

• Monitor reservoir changes.

• Help find & recover underg round re s o u rc e s .

• Design & test geophysical instru m e n t s .

• Enhance the acquisition of field and lab data.

• Investigate the mathematics of wave propagation & imaging.

• Advance computer programming, modeling and datap rocessing methods.

• Undertake wellbore (logs & VSP) geophysics.

• I n t e r p ret geophysical data & synthesize case h i s t o r i e s .

Progress Assessment

It is important to review the accomplishments of any ongoingprogram. We attempt to do this in CREWES via a number ofindicators. One simple indicator is sponsorship renewal itself.However, we find that this may be more tied to the state of theindustry (merger and acquisition activity and the price ofcommodities) than our productivity. So, we have developedanother indicator composed of awards, publications, surveys,data, student graduations, and software released. This output

Article Cont’d


Hard hats and mortarboards…Continued from Page 42

F i g u re 6. The CREWES group consists of graduate students, professors, and staff.

F i g u re 7. CREWES conducts re s e a rch enquiries primarily directed toward the energy industry.A g reat part of the CREWES effort entails education and training as well as applications in theindustrial geophysics community.

F i g u re 8. The energy and re s o u rce communities have a number of targets, re c o v e r yp rocesses, and methods to assess the re s o u rc e .


number attempts to capture a sense of the Project’s productivityand impact. We’ve plotted this indicator versus time in Figure 9.

The Project’s personnel numbers and funding have had anoverall increase over the years and so has output. But, we might

ask, “how has output per person or per dollar fared?” Is bigger,better? We find that the output per dollar of support and perperson has been fairly constant (Figure 10).

So, output/person has been largely independent of the Pro j e c t ’ stotal number of personnel. Thus, bigger is not better on a perperson basis; but, neither is smaller. However, total output hasi n c reased substantially. So, in general, it’s likely better to have al a rger project with greater output which could provide a betterchance of some re s e a rch results having a major impact.

We can also try to use outside statistics to assess the impact ofCREWES. The number of citations by other authors is one indi-cator of impact. Figure 11 shows a citation index from one data-base and suggests that CREWES’ impact is increasing and ofsimilar value to other consortia.

Challenges

There are certainly some challenges presented by the creation ofa consortium. Naturally, the financial supporters must receivesome clear benefit from their funding. This requires considerabletime, on the part of university faculty and staff, to organize anddeliver results. Part of the specific industry benefit comes fromhaving access to information that is not immediately availableotherwise. This precipitates confidentiality re q u i re m e n t s .CREWES research documents remain restricted to sponsors for aperiod (two years). This does not include theses, abstracts,journal papers and their derivative material (however, theProject does strive to provide abstracts to the sponsorship first,then release them to the public). On the industry’s part, itssupport will often be maximized through greater involvement ofits personnel (e.g., in joint projects, internships, technology tests).This will take some time and resource commitment from thecompany as well as its representatives and CREWES personnel.A consortium necessarily operates as a team. Some personnelmay be less inclined to work closely with others, so expectationsneed to be presented clearly and managed.

Some critics of industry-university relationships have suggestedthat the university could be compromised in its objective pursuitof knowledge as a result of industry contact. Or that the univer-sity could be overly influenced by sponsorship demands. We cansay that this has not been our experience in the last 20 years. Thesponsorship members are generally good scientists in their ownright, quite deferential to university goals and constraints, andare seeking inspired results somewhat different from their owninternal work or that of service companies. More o v e r, theresearch environment in applied geoscience at the University ofCalgary has been very positively impacted by the existence ofCREWES and the resultant influx of industry support.

Conclusions

The industry and university have much to gain by workingc o l l a b o r a t i v e l y. Our field of geophysics, the education ofstudents, and the application of technology to pressing problemscan all be improved by a university-industry partnership. TheCREWES Project aspires to make better pictures of the subsur-face via advanced seismic methods. Success in this undertakingis enhanced by the natural advantages of a local industry,numerous associated professionals, and a dedicated staff and

Article Cont’d


F i g u re 9. CREWES output since inception has generally risen (with some o s c i l l a t i o n s ) .

F i g u re 10. Productivity over time. The normalized output of CREWES has beenfairly consistent. Asterisks in the lower plot indicate Director Sabbatical Leavep e r i o d s .

F i g u re 11. An indication of impact can be gleaned from re f e rencing in re f e reed jour-nals. Comparative statistics are provided for leading European and Americanc o n s o r t i a .

Hard hats and mortarboards…Continued from Page 43


faculty. Using these advantages can give rise to a consistentlyproductive group in applied geophysics. R

References and ReadingAPEGGA, 2007, http://www.apegga.org/pdf/SalarySurvey/VPS2007.pdf

Anderson, H., 2004, Why big companies can’t invent: Technology Review, 107, 4, 56-59.

CalFASA, 2004, Post-secondary education and the government’s return on investment:CalFASA (Calgary Faculty and Student Alliance): Academic Views, 36, 1.

Durham, L.S., 2004, Wall Street has its own rules and, oil stocks have their own person-ality: AAPG Explorer, 25, 10, 24-26.

Cope, G., 2001, How did M&A’s impact R&D in geophysics?: CSEG RECORDER, 3, 42-46.

ESS, 2002, Earth sciences sector – Business Plan 2002/2005: Natural Resources Canada.

Larson, R., 2005, CSEG history – a random “on-line” browse: CSEG RECORDER, Feb., 28-33.

Pike, W., 2004, Ed., Service sector committed to stable investment, industry’s ‘pure’ R &D falls short: Research & Development, E&P: Hart Energy Publishing.

Selim, J., 2004, Lord’s advice: Let your students go (Interview with Lord Robert May):Discover, 25, 11, 23-24.

Schrage, M., 2004, Much ado about invention: Technology Review, 107, 4, 17.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank NSERC (Natural Sciences andEngineering Research Council of Canada) and all CREWES spon-sors. We also express our deep appreciation to the many studentsand staff of the CREWES Project who have taught us so much.

Appendix I – Deliverables

Each sponsor of the CREWES Project:i ) has immediate access to the CREWES Research Collection (in 2008 consisting of

876 re s e a rch reports and 89 student graduate theses from the last 20 years), soft-w a re, and CREWES News through the web site (www. c re w e s . o rg ) .

i i ) receives the yearly, bound Research Report on CREWES re s e a rch activities( a p p roximately 70 chapters and 900 pages) and bi-monthly CREWES Newsletter;

i i i ) receives regular releases of software developed by the Pro j e c t ;i v ) has access to detailed seismic field surveys acquired by the Project including a 3C-

3D survey and a broad-band set of 3-C lines from the Blackfoot field nearS t r a t h m o re, Alberta, a high-resolution 3-C survey, a vertical hydrophone cableline, and a 3C-3D near-surface survey.

v ) has access to physical modelling data (acoustic and elastic);v i ) is invited to continuing education courses on areas of recent technical

d e v e l o p m e n t ;v i i ) is invited to the annual Sponsors Meeting where CREWES-generated re s e a rc h

results are pre s e n t e d ;v i i i ) receives graduate-student theses, presentation abstracts, and publication re p r i n t s ;i x ) receives copies of lecture notes and CREWES-authored SEG publications as well

as PowerPoint pre s e n t a t i o n s ;x ) has the opportunity to develop joint projects of mutual interest; andx i ) has a chance to become acquainted with graduate students as potential future

e m p l o y e e s .


Robert R. Stewart graduated from the University of Toronto with a B.Sc. in physics and mathematics and completed a Ph.D.in geophysics at MIT. He has been employed with the Chevron Oil Field Research Company in La Habra, California; ArcoExploration and Production Research Centre in Dallas, Texas; Chevron Geosciences Co., and Veritas Software Ltd., Calgary.Rob was a professor of geophysics at the University of Calgary and held the Chair in Exploration Geophysics from 1987-1997. In August, 2008, he joined the University of Houston as a professor of geophysics, Cullen Chair, and Director of theAllied Geophysical Lab.

Don Lawton is a Professor of Geophysics and Chair in Exploration Geophysics in the Department ofGeoscience at the University of Calgary. He previously served as Head of the Department from 1997 to

2002. His research interests include acquisition, processing and interpretation of multicomponent seismic data, seismicanisotropy, integrated geophysical and geological studies in complex geological settings, and geological storage of CO2. Heis an Associate Director of the Consortium for Research in Elastic Wave Exploration Seismology (CREWES). He is a pastEditor of the Canadian Journal of Exploration Geophysics, and was a recipient of a Meritorious Service Award from theCanadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists (CSEG) in 1996 and the CSEG Medal in 2000. He is a member of SEG, AAPG,EAGE, CSEG, CSPG, ASEG, and APEGGA.

Gary F. Margrave is Professor of Geophysics, and Adjunct Professor of Mathematics, in the Department of Geology andGeophysics at the University of Calgary. He also serves as Associate Director of CREWES (Consortium for Research in ElasticWave Exploration Seismology) and co-directs POTSI (Pseudodifferential Operator Theory in Seismic Imaging) at theUniversity of Calgary. He received his Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Alberta in 1981 and his M.Sc. in Physicsfrom the University of Utah in 1977. From 1980 until 1995 Margrave held a number of geophysical positions within ChevronCorporation. His research interests include geophysical inversion, seismic imaging, wave propagation, harmonic analysis,time-frequency analysis, and nonstationary filtering. He is a member of the SEG, CSEG, AMS, AGU, and APPEGA.

Laurence “Larry” Lines is the President of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG). Larryreceived B.Sc. and M.Sc. geophysics degrees from the University of Alberta (1971, 1973) and a Ph.D. in geophysics from theUniversity of British Columbia (1976). His industrial career included 17 years with Amoco in Calgary and Tulsa (1976-1993).Following a career in industry, Dr. Lines held the NSERC/Petro-Canada Chair in Applied Seismology at MemorialUniversity of Newfoundland (1993-1997) and the Chair in Exploration Geophysics at the University of Calgary (1997-2002).From 2002-2007, he served as the Head, Department of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Calgary. In professionalservice, Larry has served the SEG as Geophysics Editor (1977-99), Distinguished Lecturer, Geophysics Associate Editor,Translations Editor, Publications Chairman, and as a member of The Leading Edge Editorial Board. He served the CSEG asEditor and Associate Editor. Larry and co-authors have won the SEG’s Best Paper in Geophysics Award twice (1988, 1995) and have twice wonHonorable Mention for Best Paper (1986,1998). Larry is an Honorary Member of SEG, CSEG, and the Geophysical Society of Tulsa. Additionally,he is a member of APEGGA, CGU, EAGE, and AAPG. Larry is married with two children, and enjoys hobbies of choir, softball, and hiking withhis Alaskan malamute.

Jan2009-Hardhats-and-Mortarboards

Documents