Updated: Sep 3
By Lee Lawyer
Back on March 5th and 6th, 2013, we had a Spring Symposium, which introduced a new format. Previously we called for papers and hoped for the best. We had little control of the resulting technical presentations. We took what we could get. The president that year was Phil Schultz. He introduced a new format for the meeting. The following is a quote from my column in 2013.
Our format this year is new, and it is one which we feel confident will add not only to the level of engagement by our attendees (you), but also to the value derived from the two days of the Symposium. We have only twelve speakers, all of whom are invited, and all of whom have established credentials as experts.
Recall that our Spring Symposiums were two days. The invited speakers were given 40 minutes to present their material and then had 20 minutes for questions and discussion. The idea was to dig deeply into the subject material and then let the audience have enough time to actually participate with questions and comments.
The format worked. We stayed with that. more or less, for the next six years. The pandemic’s first year was 2021. No Spring Symposium and the one scheduled for 2022 will be one day instead of two. I would call it an abbreviated version of the ‘standard’ Spring Symposium. Elaine Mattos is the Chair of the Symposium Committee. We have exhibits like in the past. The student challenge bowl will be held during the cocktail hour and the “roast and toast” is during the lunch time. Mike Graul is the victim of the R&T. It should be fun.
The next subject is an old one, regarding the future of the SEG. We are a Section of the SEG, so one might wonder if their future is the same as the GSH or visa versa. I believe that most of us are SEG members. Their goals are intertwined with ours. The question is, “Should we merge with the SPE/AAPG or not. If not, what are our options?" As you may recall, I have stated several times that I am opposed to a merger with the SPE. I understand that the AAPG’s current Board has backed the AAPG-SPE merger. I am a long-term member of the AAPG and will vote against that move. If there is any merger, it should be the SEG and the AAPG. That’s my opinion and I am sticking with it for a variety of reasons. One big one is the shared membership between the SEG and the AAPG. They have shared goals as well.
Let’s randomly select another FTOS column. How about July 1998?
“In 1973, Karcher was asked by the American Institute of Physics to write a biography detailing his life and the development of the reflection seismograph. It is entitled, “The Reflection Seismograph, Its Invention and Use in the Discovery of Oil and Gas Fields.” Quoting Karcher, “About October 1, 1925, an experimental reflection crew was organized by J. E. Duncan using a 2-galvanometer recorder. His first records were taken over the top and down the east side of Nash salt dome located about 15 miles northwest of West Columbia, Texas, where he obtained good reflections off of the anhydrite cap on the dome.” Paraphrasing Karcher, “Duncan also experimented with his reflection crew near Shawnee, Oklahoma. Encouraged by the results, GRC engaged the services of Dr. H. Bates Peacock who organized and put into operation the first field seismic reflection crew, complete with two shot hole drills. After the survey, Amerada spudded the Hallum #1, Sec. 1, T8N, R4E, which was the first successful oil well to be drilled on a structure mapped by a reflection seismograph. “
Au, those were the good old days.