To say that the next generation of workers and leaders in our industry will be confronted by challenges unlike any we have known before is likely an understatement. For the foreseeable future, the list below provides a glimpse of what lies ahead.
- An industry whose engineering and scientific foundation are still valid and necessary after 100 years but whose aversion to change has left it struggling to catch up in some areas, most notably in digital transformation (although significant progress has taken place in the past 18 months because of the pandemic)
- The paradox of a world that will use fossil fuels to meet a large proportion of its energy demand for the foreseeable future while addressing the negative public and political perception of an industry tied to global climate change
- Oil and gas companies morphing into “energy” companies, and petroleum engineers and geoscientists increasingly becoming known as “petrotechnical professionals” (PTPs)
- The reality that petroleum engineering roles have expanded to straddle upstream, midstream, and downstream, whereas petroleum engineering programs are mostly geared to upstream and, more particularly, reservoir engineering
- The replacement of Baby Boomers with Gen Zers who have an approach to work styles, life, and values generally different from the workforce they will need to lead
This labyrinth of challenges, which is raising anxiety and questions about the future of petroleum engineering (PE) education, generated much interest and numerous ideas in the “Future Leaders’ Challenges and Educational Road Map” technical session at the 2021 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (ATCE) in September. The papers in the session focused on what academia (and industry) can do to nurture the leaders of the future. A common thread was the need to enable students to not only sur-vive but also thrive as they transition into an evolving industry.
The authors discussed issues they believe academia can control and govern—i.e., upgrading education and restructuring academic units—and issues such as demand changes, oil prices, and world politics that are beyond academia’s control. They also expressed agreement that certain elements within teaching and learning practices need periodic modifications—and sometimes serious paradigm shifts or even radical changes.
Trends: What’s New (or Not)
Paper SPE 205964 asked a rhetorical question, “Is it the end of an era or a new start?” Tayfun Babadagli, professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Alberta, pointed out that beginning with the first publication of an article on PE education in 1937, periodic reviews and evaluations—generally corresponding to industry downturns and drops in enrollment—have questioned whether PE programs should be removed from universities or restructured, depending on local conditions and industry needs.
Following the 2014 crisis and a sharp decline in PE enrollments, several SPE papers suggested modernization options and changes in education that included options for local needs in certain geographic areas, field-based education, use of visual tools, and information technologies for smart wells and fields at a graduate (MSc) level. Inclusion of training in geothermal engineering was suggested in 2015. In the past couple of years, digital information sciences and new applications of PE sciences and subsurface storage and groundwater hydrology have been suggested.
Anti Klimaks Implementasi E-Government: Analisis Partisipasi Masyarakat Petani Di Kabupaten Gunungkidul
