RE: Industry Biostratigraphy

[WILLIAM.W.CLOPINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note
From: Clopine, William W.
To:  paleonet
Subject:  RE: Industry Biostratigraphy
Date: 1996-05-14 10:25
Priority:
Message ID: 94A438BE
Conversation ID: 94A438BE

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

As an "industry biostratigrapher" I've been closely following the discussion
Norm started on this topic.  Like many others I  found Martin Jakubowski's
comments right on track.  For several years I was very close to being my
company's "...sole voice for the preservation of sound biostratigraphic
principles" as Martin described.  Since that time, however,  our biostrat
group has grown, and we've hired additional people  with biostrat
backgrounds into interpreter roles.   These are not big changes for the
overall job market, but they are steps in the right direction!

In regards to Rich Lanes comment that  "You need only check with a few
industry paleontologists in Houston to find out that they are out of a  job
because of sequence stratigraphy"  I have to disagree.   In my experience,
interpreters doing real sequence stratigraphic interpretation are very open
to the contribution biostratigraphy makes.   This is why we have added to
our biostratigraphic staff and hired people with biostratigraphic
backgrounds into geoscience interpretation positions.

In my opinion the problem does not lie in properly applied sequence strat,
 but in its often mis-applied ancestor seismic stratigraphy.   In the early
days of seismic strat all sorts of predictive promises were made, many of
which have simply not panned out.  Most interpreters understand this and
work to  integrate biostrat, log data, etc., etc. into an overall sequence
stratigraphic model.    Unfortunately, some folks (often supervisors or
managers who were interpreters when seismic strat was new and full of
promise) still don't get it.   This is another reason for the "but surely
biostratigraphy is all done now" sort of comment Rich mentioned.

One way biostratigraphers can be successful is by making this distinction
very clear within their own organizations.   Interpretations based on data
that do not include biostratigraphy are often seismic stratigraphic or
lithostratigraphic or something else other than sequence stratigraphic (=
out of date technology) , even if the author claims a sequence stratigraphic
approach.  Carefully worded constructive criticism can quickly point this
out, and increase the market for new biostratigraphic work.

That's my 2 cents worth.

Regards,

Bill Clopine
aka: william.w.clopine@conoco.dupont.com

#############################################################
Remember:  If it doesn't include biostrat, you can't call it sequence strat.
#############################################################