John C. Calhoun Jr.

John Donnelly, JPT Editor

Editor’s Note: In recognition of SPE’s 50th anniversary this year, JPT is conducting interviews with several society luminaries about their careers, their relationship with SPE, and the changes they have seen in the oil and gas industry and the society over the past several decades.

How did you get involved in SPE?

At Pennsylvania State University, I became an American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers (AIME) student member and, later, as a research assistant there, I attended AIME annual meetings. I became active in the Mineral Industries Education Division of AIME and eventually became its chairman. I was a member of the AIME Board, on which I served during some of the earliest discussions about AIME reorganization to give the member societies such as SPE more autonomy.

What has been your most valuable SPE experience?

This is difficult to pinpoint because there were many experiences that contributed to my understanding of petroleum practice, to my contacts with other petroleum engineers, and to my knowledge of professional organizations. Perhaps at the top of the list would be those activities that exposed me to the broader field of professional societies, the totality of the engineering profession, and the services that engineering renders to society.

As someone who has been involved in petroleum engineering education for decades, what do you believe are the biggest changes that have occurred in the teaching of petroleum engineering over that time?

Petroleum engineering came into being as an offshoot of mining engineering, with perhaps a greater emphasis upon geology. Petroleum curricula began to take on a separate identity as individual courses were introduced to embrace the operations that were identified with drilling and producing wells. These even extended to the refining of petroleum. After these early curricula were identified, the first significant change that occurred in the teaching of petroleum engineering took place with the recognition of concepts identified as reservoir engineering, which represented a shift from a concern for individual wells to a concern for the reservoir as an entity. Later, changes in teaching recognized that the well and reservoir needed to be considered together.

Today’s concerns of petroleum engineering education appear to fall into five general categories. First is that of gaining access to and operating within a greater portion of the subsurface environment. Second is that of developing instruments and methods for the detailed characterization of subsurface formations, their fluids, their variations, and their surroundings. Third is that of bringing to the surface a greater proportion of the petroleum from reservoirs that have been accessed and understanding the fluid transfer operations that accompany this recovery. Fourth is that of systematizing the management of the technological activities that make up these concerns and coupling the technological management with business decisions and regulatory requirements. Fifth is the extension of any and all of these concerns and activities to making use of the Earth’s subsurface for societal needs other than that of producing petroleum.

Are students better or less prepared to enter the industry upon graduation than they were a couple of decades ago?

There is little doubt that students are better prepared today. The industry does not need today to provide the diversity of in-house training that it made available in the past to the beginning engineer employee. Further, more students today enter the industry with an MS degree and/or take advantage of the short courses and similar learning opportunities that are available to them through SPE and other organizations. Today’s engineering graduates at all levels are literate in the use of computers and the sophisticated analytical techniques that are used within the industry, and they have a greater awareness, in general, of industry business practices.

When you were SPE president in the early 1960s, petroleum engineering was not that highly regarded. What accounted for that, and how much has that perception improved?

In the early 1960s, petroleum engineering was still a relatively new branch of the engineering profession, with only a small number of universities offering programs in the field and having a relatively small part of the total engineering enrollment. It was not a branch of engineering with which the average person might come into contact. Petroleum engineers were employed by a small group of companies rather than by a broad spectrum of the industrial economy. Consequently, petroleum engineering was a branch of the profession that was not so much held in low regard as it was poorly known. The best-known thing about petroleum engineering, however, was that it was associated with the petroleum industry. Hence, the regard in which the profession was held was coupled with that given to the industry.

An aspect to this matter that is often overlooked is that the works of the petroleum engineer are not visible to the public in the same sense as those of other engineers. The physical domain of these works is the subsurface of the Earth, hidden from public view. What may find public view, similar to that in mining operations, may be unattractive, or may not seem to inspire wonder or awe. Hence, the comparisons with other branches of engineering, whose works are in public view, tend not to be favorable.

Earlier perceptions have improved, but petroleum engineers are still largely identified with one industry, whose name it bears. In the academic community, the voice of petroleum engineering is a minor one. In the engineering profession, the petroleum engineer is still not widely known. My own writings have tried to elucidate the basic nature of petroleum engineering as a parallel to other branches of engineering, and, through various channels, I have encouraged the adoption of a name to supplant petroleum, but the value of such a name change has never been taken seriously.

Does that historical perception help to explain why the oil industry is not better regarded today?

Not really. I think that people who know petroleum engineers tend to think more highly of the oil industry than those who do not. Overall, the public’s perception of the oil industry is multifaceted. Any analysis of those facets would show the public’s perception of petroleum engineering to be a minor influence. As I indicated, I think a reverse effect is more likely to exist; that is, the public’s regard for the oil industry may have a negative effect on the public’s perception of petroleum engineering. It is probable that many prospective students are turned away from petroleum engineering as a career because of their perception of the industry.

How difficult was SPE’s separation from AIME, or was it an evolution that just seemed to occur naturally?

In my view, it was not a natural evolution. I think it happened because AIME was not so much oriented to the profession of engineering as it was to the welfare of the industries that extracted materials from the subsurface. The major thing that might have tied together the separate societies of AIME was the science that pertained to the subsurface, but the technological operations differed widely. Consequently, there were diverging viewpoints as to future prospects, strategies, and growth potential, as well as differences of opinion as to how existing resources, with historically binding commitments, could be used for future growth. In my view, therefore, the split within AIME had more the quality of a divorce than of an evolution.

Were you surprised at the pace of SPE’s international growth?

Yes, and it could not have happened had there not been a preceding lengthy period of time during which students from other countries came to the US to study petroleum engineering.

How have relations between the oil industry and academia changed over the years?

These relationships have always been good, but could have been stronger than they were. In earlier days, the tendency was for relationships to be built upon the knowledge of particular company personnel with a particular institution, perhaps through a particular alumnus, a particular faculty member, or a particular geographical location. Industrial support took the form of financing scholarships and fellowships, donating equipment, providing summer jobs or consulting arrangements for faculty, using faculty as instructors in company courses, providing campus speakers in specialty areas, and similar arrangements.

Organized industry support was missing until research activities appeared, and sometimes these were relationships with parts of the university other than petroleum engineering departments. Early on, the American Petroleum Institute established a series of research projects for which they solicited proposals, but this was a limited potential funding source for petroleum engineering. Industry associations were successful in a few states in convincing state legislatures to allocate funds for research in petroleum engineering topics, notably in Pennsylvania, Texas, Kansas, and New Mexico, but all attempts to broaden this approach to the federal level met with no success. In this arena, the major oil companies took a negative stance, preferring a policy that emphasized the primacy of in-house private research.

Over the years, academic departments expanded their course offerings to off-campus locations, and they have designed specific programs or courses to accommodate the needs of engineers in practice who wish to extend their learning. University departments also have developed research activities directed at specific problem areas of the industry and have designed ways in which industry groups can participate in these programs. Such centers or institutes are now common and have formalized procedures through which industry may take part in the planning processes for the programs of such entities. These and similar arrangements have strengthened petroleum engineering department/industry ties.

What is most needed in that relationship today?

Perhaps the greatest need is a conceptual one. In many fields of technology, a university can create the necessary environment for study and research within its own confines. For petroleum engineering, however, the environment cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. It exists only in nature, a situation that also exists for other fields of study, such as oceanography or archaeology. In many such fields, national, and even international, efforts exist to create mechanisms whereby university faculty and students can gain access to the real environment for their work. The Deep-Ocean Drilling projects and the national Center for Atmospheric Research are examples of such arrangements. It would be a tremendous step forward if such a mechanism existed for the field of petroleum engineering. Filling this need would require cooperative effort on the part of leaders from the university, industry, and government.

Another need, also relating to environmental access, exists in the area of graduate study. This is the need for internships by means of which the student has access to the environment of practice while still a student. In medicine, this is done through the university hospital concept. Would it not be possible for industry and the universities to join in establishing a program of such internships for students in petroleum engineering?

John C. Calhoun Jr., SPE, is Distinguished Professor of Petroleum Engineering-Emeritus at Texas A&M University and Deputy Chancellor of Engineering-Emeritus for the Texas A&M University System. Calhoun served both the Texas A&M University and System in various capacities from 1955 through 1987, beginning as Dean of Engineering, Director of the Texas Engineering Experiment Station, and Director of the Texas Engineering Extension Service. His subsequent titles have included Distinguished Professor of Petroleum Engineering, Dean of Geosciences, Director of the Center for Marine Resources, Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Director of the Crisman Institute for Petroleum Reservoir Management for Texas A&M, and Vice President for Engineering, Vice Chancellor for Development, Vice-President for Programs, Executive Vice Chancellor for Programs, and Deputy Chancellor for Engineering for the A&M System. From 1963 to 1965, Calhoun was on leave to serve as Assistant and Science Adviser to the US Secretary of the Interior and Acting Director of the Office of Water Resources Research.

Calhoun was designated an Honorary Member of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers in 1976 and a Distinguished Member of SPE in 1984. He was President of SPE in 1964, received its DeGolyer Distinguished Service Medal in 1982, and its Anthony F. Lucas Gold Medal in 1997.

Calhoun received BS, MS, and PhD degrees from Pennsylvania State University and was designated a Penn State Alumni Fellow in 1976. He was awarded the Doctor of Science degree from Ripon College in 1975. He has served on the faculties and as an administrator at the University of Oklahoma (1946–1950) and at Pennsylvania State University (1937–1946 and 1950–1955). He was 1974 President of the American Society for Engineering Education, in 1978 was designated an Honorary Member, and in 1983 a Fellow; President of the Marine Technology Society (1975), and a Fellow; and has served as a member of the Board of Directors for both the Engineers’ Joint Council and the Engineers’ Council for Professional Development. He was a Presidential appointee to the National Advisory Committee for The Oceans and Atmosphere (1972), and a member of the Advisory Committee on Mining and Mineral Resources Research, Department of the Interior (1987–1995). Calhoun is a member of the National Academy of Engineering.