... and do you already know if you want to be a Petrophysicist or a Geophysicist?
Pick your side...
| Exploration & Production Geology http://www.epgeology.com/ |
|
| Smaller number of Petrophysicists Vs Geophysicists? http://www.epgeology.com/petrophysics-f23/smaller-number-petrophysicists-geophysicists-t137.html |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Herman [ Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Smaller number of Petrophysicists Vs Geophysicists? |
By using a LinkedIn people search as a ruler, Petrophysicists number less than 15% of the combined total of both disciplines. This prompts a second question. The apparent shortage of Petrophysicists impacts on oil companies struggling to fill posts and therefore provides for Petrophysicists to be amongst the highest paid of the subsurface technical disciplines. Why does it apparently struggle to attract career development in this discipline? Is it just not fun enough... I would beg to differ! |
|
| Author: | JohnRussel [ Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Smaller number of Petrophysicists Vs Geophysicists? |
Herman, You're absolutley right that the industry has far too few trained petrophysicists. I think there are a number of factors. There are very few universities offering graduate or MS degres in petrophysics (I think Tulsa run a grad course, and TU Delft with NExT run a MS one). I think most petrofizzers come from the logging industry or develop a taste for the discipline from a course module, either during their MSc or during an external training course. Thus, many petrofizzers tend to stumble into the job - I know I did. Also, the job can be a pain - up to 75% of your time fighting the data (gathering, environmental correcting, depth shifting, merging, core plug, matching), and only 25% of your time actually analysing it. Other disciplines often only see the petrophysicist as someone to give them pretty plots, 3 numbers per well (phie, Sw and NTG) and maybe a Sw-height function. This, the job can be seen to be a bit of a dead end. Not many petrofizzzers go on to be CEO of the company. Many (most?) become consultants, either internal or external. Hence, they become grey haired experts, highly paid yes (deservedly so in my opinion), but they rarely move across into the heady world of the executive. Also, once the open hole data have been analysed and stuck into Petrel or whatever geo-package is being used for modelling, the petrophysicist is ignored, Almost never being called on to review the logs once the field is on production. The incorporation of WFT and test data is regarded as Res Engineer territory, strat correlations and image analysis is often done by geologists, cased hole/production logs tend to be viewed as Pet Engr property. Hence, the marginalised petrofizzer is often regarded as a luxury by companies. Someone you need to get in at the beginning of a project, but then discarded once the simulation gets going. A final more insidious reason I believe is that logging contractors offer a one-stop shop - we'll acquire and analyse your logs for you, just leave a large cheque on the desk as you leave - so many companies (especially smaller ones) feel they don't need a petrophysicist in-house, merely ring up one of the Big 3 and ask them to deliver an 'answer product". And they will, they may also run every single log in their catalogue in the company's well and the CPI may be complete rubbish, but if companies abdicate their responsibility to QC and interpret their own data and let the contractor do it for them ... caveat emptor! This is a very dangerous road that some companies have chosen to go down and it is false economy. I have been an active member of SPE and SPWLA for more years than I care to remember. And, I admit my view is biased and downright cynical, but can I add that a good petrophysicist is worth his/her weight in gold. They perform an extremely complex task, using numerous and variable forms of data which are onerous to weld into one interpretable dataset, and they have to be able to work across virtually every discipline, from drillers to G&G, from reservoir engineers to production types. Of course the industry needs more of these precious people and the industry needs to value them more. -J Russel |
|
| Author: | CliveH76 [ Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Smaller number of Petrophysicists Vs Geophysicists? |
I concur with the above statements. Geophysicists and Geologists are more career mobile and tend to outmaneuver Petros for management positions. Petros are easily pigeon-holed as specialists with very specific skill-sets. I also believe that this immobile, specificity matches most Petro-personalities just fine. Most seem to be very aware that they do not want to move into asset management, technical team lead or off into corporate wonderland. On the other hand, Petros have the opportunity to develop powerful cross-disciplined skills that can take them just about anywhere if they so wish. Rock Mechanics, Enhanced Recovery, and Unconventional Reservoirs being some examples. On another tack, the amount of data mined by Geophysicists versus Petrophysicist is substantial. They normally need 3 Geophysicists to Plan, Acquire, Process and then Interpret a dataset where we need 1 Petrophysicist to do the same. Our importance to the establishment should be measured by the dollars spent on well logging versus seismic. I know for most companies we are spending 2 to 3 times as much on Petrophysical data and Geophysical data. cheers, Clive |
|
| Author: | PetroBoss [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Smaller number of Petrophysicists Vs Geophysicists? |
Good discussion. I would add that I trained both as a Petrophysicist (Stanford Univ) and Geophysicist (Colorado Sch Mines), but consciously chose the Geowizzicist (Geophysics) path. That has to do with all of the reasons cited above + Personality. Personality test such as Myers-Briggs tend to show Petros to be more like "ISTJ", ie more Introvert (than Extrovert), more Sensing (than Intuitive), more Thinking (than Sensing), more Judging (than Perceiving) when compared to the "average human". That leads to the M-B description below (off their website): "Quiet, serious, earn success by thoroughness and dependability. Practical, matter-of-fact, realistic, and responsible. Decide logically what should be done and work toward it steadily, regardless of distractions. Take pleasure in making everything orderly and organized – their work, their home, their life. Value traditions and loyalty". Enough about stereotypes... I once had an ex-Petrophysicist mgr, who was all the opposite of the stereotype above.. great combination. I would add that certain companies have the reputation of highly valuing Petros and having developed a top-notch internal training program (Shell for example). It remains that the demand for competent Petrophysicists looks to be bright and steady for the foreseeable future, based on the geography (geology of an area) and the needs of most O&G organizations. |
|
| Author: | Hastron01 [ Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Smaller number of Petrophysicists Vs Geophysicists? |
I agree with above explanations however, I think that reason is simply hidden in the nature of the petrophysics work. An exploration work is mainly carried out by geologists and geophysicists (the real geos). At the exploration phase (from start until drilling) geos need basic answers to the hydrocarbon potential of an area such as average porosity and permeability. And they can make anology with nearby producing fields and rarely consults the petrophysicists. However, this picture changes completely during post-mortem and log analysing studies. At that stage no one calls interpreters to discuss effective porosity of the formation, but petrophysicists and geologists. Basic petrophysical analysis results of a well comes within a week (usually in a day). As soon as these results are presented to the board, management takes a decision about that well already. Usually companies spent many years to develop a prospect and spent millions of dollars to reach the target and collect information about it however they do not want to loose to much time with aftermaths. Petrophysicist analyzes the physical results from a well site. And reports real world physical parameters with a certain percentage of error. On the other side geos create a basin (if not the world), deforms it, re-shapes, burries, erodes; interprets, maps, reinterprets, maps, changes fault correlations, remapps... etc. In general geos try to approach the best possible solution with the least given subsurface data - displays. And they always lack information at the most prospective part of the area of interest. If we further ask below questions to ourselves then we start understanding the reason. What is the longest duration of a study over a single oil well? How many wells can a company drill in a single year? How frequently old wells logs are revised? Or most importantly how detailed petrophysics works are requested by the management? |
|
| Author: | mr-Oil [ Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Smaller number of Petrophysicists Vs Geophysicists? |
While agreeing with 96% of what has been posted I MUST point out what has not. The need for a Petrophysicist begins even before that first seismic survey has been designed and doesn’t end until a field has the last well plugged and abandoned. The very idea that a Petro is only involved at the TD of an exploration well is the source for more problems than can be counted. Any seismic survey worth having must be designed up front to see the character of potential hydrocarbon reservoirs. Without the Petro, the character cannot be properly defined nor can the survey be properly designed much less acquired. After design and acquisition, the interpretation of the survey calls for more understanding of what might be seen from a Petrophysical standpoint overprinted on the survey. In picking the first well location again the prime spot as viewed prom a Petrophysical standpoint must be identified. The Petro’s views and knowledge then must be inputs to the well design, drilling procedure and data acquisition. Now it’s time to do that one thing that everyone agrees is in the Petro’s yard. After that the results of that analysis will go into the completion planning as well as logging any uphole potential for later testing. Now it is time for well #2 and all of the above again apply….. and so forth and so forth with the field development, opportunities for secondary and tertiary recovery as well as depletion planning and abandonment procedures. Now if you have read through all of the above you may see why I say the shortage is critical, it takes a unique individual to fill the spot, the oil companies in general do not know enough to understand the strengths or see the value. This is more of the reason for the lower ration than anything else. One Petro for every field – minimum! |
|
| Author: | Daniel Maher [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Smaller number of Petrophysicists Vs Geophysicists? |
What is the difference between a Petrophysicist and a Geophysicist? I have never heard of Petrophysics before. |
|
| Author: | BillReisser [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Smaller number of Petrophysicists Vs Geophysicists? |
Daniel, This is a good question! As both disciplines often use the same physical properties to extract information from the earth. the approach is quite different though. Petrophysicists generally look at rock properties in detail through, core, log and outcrop data. Geophysicists do the same but use surveying and recording equipment to extract rock properties from a larger distance. Therefore not the exact properties of a rock becomes important, but mainly the change in their properties both spatialy and vertically. They usually use seismic methods, gravity, magnetic, electrical resistivity, electromagnetics. All these techniques can provide information about (or image) the subsurface without actually coming in close contact with the rock. The most popular geophysical technique is seismic imaging though; probably followed by gravitational and magnetic measurements... Petrophysicis can also use some of these measuring techniques like sonic (sound propogation, sort of similar to seismics), resisitivity and elcotromagnetism. But their most popular techniques use other specilised tools like gammaray emition and the response of neutron bombardement. They also look at rocks extracted from wells like cores, sidewall cores and drilling cuttings to calibrate their measuring tools. Fluid content in rocks is also very important and petrophysicist can calculate salinity and oil and gas saturation. In general... geophysics tells us where in the subsurface favourable hydrocarbon traps are, while petrophysics tells us if the rock in these traps can hold and produce hydrocarbons. Hope that cleared it up... -Bill |
|
| Author: | Daniel Maher [ Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Smaller number of Petrophysicists Vs Geophysicists? |
Thanks Bill, that did clear up my question, but it raises another. How can Petrophysicists tell the difference between different fluids? I think this question should be in another section however, so I will look for a better place to post it. Daniel |
|
| Author: | CliveH76 [ Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Smaller number of Petrophysicists Vs Geophysicists? |
... and do you already know if you want to be a Petrophysicist or a Geophysicist? Pick your side...
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 1 hour |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|