We have talked for a long time now, among ourselves and to others, about the impending shortage of trained personnel in the upstream industry. It has been accompanied by a surfeit of hand wringing and head shaking but little in the way of concrete activity to address the problem.

Just how bad is the problem? A recent survey by U.S. News & World Report, detailed in a study by Ernst & Young, provides some indication. Of the 25 top universities surveyed two had petroleum engineering (PE) departments and 22 offered degrees in network engineering or computer science. The two PE departments produced 75 undergraduate degrees in the 2003-2004 school year. The 22 network and computer departments produced 2,250 undergrads.

Other statistics underscore the problem. There were approximately 33,000 petroleum engineers in the United States in 1983 according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics as reported in the Ernst & Young report. In 2002, that number stood at 18,000, a 45% decline in less than 20 years. The number of geologists and geophysicists 26% declined in the same period, from 65,000 to 48,000. On the other hand, the number of computer systems analysts rose from 276,000 in 1983 to 1.7 million in 2002.
The age demographics of professionals in the industry do not help any. The average age of an SPE member is just about my age and each year that goes by increases the average age of the members (discounting the student membership). That means that retirements will take a significant - even scary - toll in the 10 years. The estimates for retirement in that time frame run as high as 40% of those now working in the industry. And there is a disquieting gap in membership in the late 30-year-old to mid 50-year-old range. That means a severe shortage is close at hand. It also means that many of us may be working longer than we had anticipated as desperate employers offer very attractive incentives to retain senior, experienced personnel.

At the root of the problem, as Ernst & Young's Charles Swanson (America's Director of Oil & Gas) points out, are the cyclical employment history of the industry and, more importantly, its tarnished image.
Whilst all of this is old news, it bears repeating. Not until the industry makes a concerted effort to repair its image will the situation look any better. Unfortunately, it is looking as though any action will be reactive rather than proactive - it will have to get much worse before anyone works seriously toward improvement.

Four more for Dubbya

You could not have missed the US presidential election - two solid years of political diatribe of the most disgusting sort. The result was probably never in as much doubt as the media wanted it to be. George W. Bush scored four more years. What is ultimately more important is that Republicans picked up a number of seats in both legislative houses. One might think that that would bode well for a national energy policy. Yet, and very curiously, energy and energy independence did not become important election issues.
A number of post election pundits have tried to read much into this with relation to a US energy policy and the fate of the Energy Bill that languishes in our federal legislative halls. It's probably better to speculate on pork futures. Consensus among folks I talk to regularly bets that little will change so long as the issue remains linked to the environment and sustainability. History would suggest the same - no administration, of either persuasion, has ever put together a coherent energy policy outside times of war.

Comments