Out of Work(long)

From
Date
Hi Everybody,

Below is an exchange originally posted on the COCCOLITH list.  I was
asked to post the last response I made to PALEONET for comment but I
think the Ideas expressed needed the context to be appreciated.  The
participants in the discussion were Martin Jakubowski, Ralph Salomon,
and me.  I got permission to repost this from both Martin and Ralph. 
There was considerable traffic on this line on the COCCOLITH list some
of which I apparently did not get.  I hope this will provoke some
response here as well.  Remember that what we said on that particular
day may not be what we would say today.
Mike

 ========================================================================
|     Michael J. Styzen                   Phone:  (504) 588-4308        |
|     Shell Offshore Inc.                 Room:   OSS-1808  	        |
|     P.O. Box 61933                      E-mail: mstyzen@shellus.com	|      
|     New Orleans LA  70161                                             |
=========================================================================
Martin:

Regarding the comment on the high numbers of 'out of work' nanno
specialists, this raises an interesting point. Firstly is this really the
case when compared with the numbers of 'out of work' micropalaeontologists,
palynologists and palaeontologists in general?. If so what is the underlying
cause?. Is it the fact that nanno specialists are not very good at selling
their science?. Despite DSDP and ODP, I still come across many geologists
who have a poor understanding of biostratigraphy, not to mention
nannofossils (e.g. what exactly are these banana-fossils then?); that is
partly our fault for not 'selling' our knowledge and expertise adequately.
Should more nanno specialists be aiming to publish in the more prestigious
journals?, would this really make a difference?. In relation to industry,
the lack of or low numbers of nanno specialists reflects the fact that
nannos are simply not as useful in biostrat. as the other major microfossil
disciplines, there will always be more foram. workers and palynologists.
Although there are some areas where nannos can display and indeed have
displayed their correlation potential (e.g. Neogene turbidites-Gulf of
Mexico, L. Cret. carbonates, North Sea) these opportunities, in comparison
to those available to micropal. and palynology, are too few and far between.
In addition, the need for an understanding of depositional environment
always leaves us behind the pack. We cannot compete with the
micropalaeontologists and palynologists in this field. Our understanding of
the palaeoenvironmental significance of nannos is still in its infancy.
Anybody got any other thoughts on the 'out of work' subject?.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike:

In reply to Martin's note.
I would say he is underselling nannos somewhat as a correlation tool.
In this office we use nannos for correlation in neritic deposits too,
not just turbidites.  As time has gone on it has become apparent that
if one has the patience to pick through jillions of tiny rocks to look
for the rare nannos in neritic shales they are quite useful.  This type
of work is allowing us to tie "field markers" based on benthic forams
to the global and regional system thereby enabling us to reevaluate the
local deposition in a sequence strat framework.  All third order cycles
are not the same and it matters very much which one you are in.  I sell
quite a bit of nanno work and most of the geologists around here are
becoming acutely aware of what we can do for them.  In the Gulf of
Mexico we have found that aa combination of forams and nannos provides
the highest resolution for the dollar.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph:

My thoughts and I won't even ask you for a penny.
I'm not so sure that micropaleontology departments have done a poor job
of selling their "place" in the exploration process, if in fact we are
talking
about the oil companies.  What has taken place is a dramatic change in
the way exploration is approached which unfortunately has cost many of
our peers and friends their professions or forced retirements earlier than
expected.

Twenty years ago, Amoco had a paleontological staff of over 100 people.
Today the number is 31, and by the end of the year it will be even less.
I know some of you who work for big oil have seen similar changes. Why ?

If there has been any underselling, it has been to management and not
to the rank and file geoscientists that understand and use our data.  You
have to understand that management views each and every one of us as
overhead in an environment where a barrel of oil is good and excessive
costs are bad.

Now it's easy to understand how we can drill oil wells with subsurface
imaging tools like 3-D seismic and display that data in fancy graphics,
but I've never heard of an oil well being drilled on paleo data.  As much
as I hate to admit it, the tools of our trade have changed little over the
years and as much as we profess work more efficiently and define
higher resolution biostratigraphy we still sit behind the microscope and
generate data that others use and put into these fantastic seismic and
geologic displays.

Yes, individually, any one of us is capable of going into a basin and
unraveling it's many chronostratigraphic secrets.  Coupled with
paleoenvironmental data, we can provide a very powerful tool for basin
modeling and defining hydrocarbon systems.  The work we do is good
and valuable but when you examine the economics of our jobs, we can't
compete with the geophysicist or geologist defining the traps and modeling
the petroleum systems.

In a big oil company, each employee costs the organization approximately
$1200 per day, perhaps more when you consider the bureaucracy it takes
to support that one person or paleontologist.  It's my personal opinion
that management would prefer to pay a consultant $35/slide, $100/slide or
$500/day, whatever to generate those data required to model basins or
hydrocarbon systems.  This way, there are no benefits to pay and the
costs to find that single barrel of oil just dropped.

I can't believe I'm actually admitting to saying these things, but I
observe it
and fight it daily.  I'm a biostratigrapher, yet I spend my day working a
3-D seismic grid and taking prospects into committee.  So I suppose what
I'm trying to say, is that there is and will always be jobs out there for
some
of us, but I think that these jobs will be in the form of individual
consultants
or small consulting firms.  I also think there future will be lucrative.
I don't think big oil will ever see large paleontological staffs again but
I sure do hope so.

Ok, now you have my thoughts.  Mike was right, Martin was also right.
I look forward to seeing your rates/slide increase.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike:

I agree with most of what Ralph says.  I presently am in a paleo
department that has been reduced from 22 individuals when I started
here (1984) to 4 at present.  I have gone from looking down the scope
all day to mostly managing contractors and interpreting.  I do, however
manage to design a few projects that require me to do scope work.  In
the three years or so since I was dragged kicking and screaming from
behind my scope I have actually seen the fortunes of paleo turn around
somewhat in this company.  The change in attitude from "If you aren't
behind your scope you aren't working"  to  "What are you doing behind
that scope???" has yielded some benefit.  I still have not learned to
use a 3D seismic work station.  but I have become involved in the
process of exploration and production (Indeed I would have about as
much chance of telling a multiple from a real signal as the average
geophysicist would have telling reworked Mesozoic namnnos in the
Pleisticene).  As a team member (rather that a black box) I have found
that I can bring unique perspective that is appreciated by other
geoscientists (who hopefully will become managers some day).  Presently
I would say biostratigraphy is used on a higher percentage of the
projects than it was when we had an in-house staff.

My real concern is the next generation of paleontologists.  It takes
years behind the scope to become familiar with all the biostratigraphic
nuances in a given basin.  As the worldwide oil exploration business
becomes more mature the days of rushing into a new area and plugging
the seismic bright spots will come to an end.  Much to management's
chagrin real geological reconstructions will be essential if one is to
stay in business.  The big paleo staffs which were the training ground
of the current generation are gone.  The trend in consultants is away
from the big consulting houses toward a cottage industry with
individuals working out of their homes.  Even what would appear on the
surface to be a consulting firm on closer inspection generally turns
out to be a loose confederation of individuals.  These folks, steeped
in hard times, for the most part, veiw training people out of college
as manufacturing their own competition when things go south again.
This produces multiple problems.  I would be ineffective in my current
position without my years of scope work. There is nobody behind me.
There are very few young people in the aging consulting pool.  Most of
them are looking forward (not ghoulishly) to the older generation
slowly leaving the business so they can really clean up.  The oil
companies will be hard pressed to hire one of those to put in my type
of job when I retire.
So, what is going to happen?  I don't have a clue but it should be
interesting to watch.