Real Problem — Or an Abstraction?

Exploration Ventures Historically Associated with Risk

Because exploration ventures historically have been associated with high risk and great uncertainty, they have been perceived as speculative by many prudent investors — thus the natural arena for two general types of private investors: ill-informed victims and well-informed survivors. Caveat emptor is the watchword.

That's why portfolio management is so important, and so widely utilized by successful E&P companies — it allows such risks to be diversified.

And E&P risk analysis, on which it depends, requires prospectors to be objective and professional.

It is no accident that petroleum exploration has been the natural habitat of visionaries, seers, promoters and not a few outright frauds — as well as a far larger number of commendably honest and honorable geoscientists, engineers and landmen. With so much money riding on the outcome of so many high-risk, high-potential ventures, such intense competition among various players, and such wide usage of geotechnical tools (and their consequential output), it is only natural that secrecy and proprietary data are endemic to the E&P business.

Some of the most common ethical lapses among explorationists involve confidentiality and respect for proprietary tools and information. Many geoscientists seem to have conflicting ideas about data:

  • The scientist in them prefers to view all information as public property — but with an inalienable right to personally "rat-hole" it!
  • The business person jealously guards it as private property.

However, the law on proprietary information and intellectual property comes down mostly on the side of whoever paid for it. So it's disappointing — but not surprising — that many proprietary seismic lines and maps have strayed away from their proper stewards.

Please log in to read the full article

Because exploration ventures historically have been associated with high risk and great uncertainty, they have been perceived as speculative by many prudent investors — thus the natural arena for two general types of private investors: ill-informed victims and well-informed survivors. Caveat emptor is the watchword.

That's why portfolio management is so important, and so widely utilized by successful E&P companies — it allows such risks to be diversified.

And E&P risk analysis, on which it depends, requires prospectors to be objective and professional.

It is no accident that petroleum exploration has been the natural habitat of visionaries, seers, promoters and not a few outright frauds — as well as a far larger number of commendably honest and honorable geoscientists, engineers and landmen. With so much money riding on the outcome of so many high-risk, high-potential ventures, such intense competition among various players, and such wide usage of geotechnical tools (and their consequential output), it is only natural that secrecy and proprietary data are endemic to the E&P business.

Some of the most common ethical lapses among explorationists involve confidentiality and respect for proprietary tools and information. Many geoscientists seem to have conflicting ideas about data:

  • The scientist in them prefers to view all information as public property — but with an inalienable right to personally "rat-hole" it!
  • The business person jealously guards it as private property.

However, the law on proprietary information and intellectual property comes down mostly on the side of whoever paid for it. So it's disappointing — but not surprising — that many proprietary seismic lines and maps have strayed away from their proper stewards.

And how many geoprofessionals have unlicensed copies of proprietary software on their computers?

How many corporations communicate clear codes of conduct to their professional employees about proprietary data and tools, and periodically check on their compliance?


The flip side of the confidentiality coin is communication — objective, transparent and timely communication to our managers, directors and investors.

It's easy to relay good news. Conveying bad news is a lot tougher, requiring disciplined professionalism and often the willingness to be accountable. As we all know, "Success has many fathers; failure is an orphan."

Bottom line: Always tell the truth (you'll never have to remember what you said), and tell it timely.


A serious breach of ethics may not result in a complaint being filed with AAPG's Ethics Committee. Historically, it is even more unlikely that AAPG will take any official adverse action (though I hope that will change soon). But such a breach will likely cost you a colleague's respect, a client's confidence or a competitor's condemnation.

Based on my 43 years of experience, several such breaches are likely to make you, unknowingly, a pariah among your peers. Always remember that the E&P business is an amazingly small community — and the word really does get around. Folks have long memories.

Never forget that real people get hurt because of ethical violations — professionals, investors, families and friends. People are cheated out of their property. Their good-faith investments are wasted. Their hard work is denigrated. Their faith is destroyed. On the other hand, careers can be capsized, and families can be shipwrecked.

Ethics is not some ivory-tower abstraction.


With all this uncertainty, thirst for data and complex conditionality of deals, how does the well-intentioned explorationist keep to the straight and narrow and still remain competitive?

Most important, always conduct yourself as a professional!

Over the course of a career, it behooves you to frequently "take stock" regarding your interactions with colleagues, clients and competitors. And constantly think about what you are doing in your business dealings. Also, it's not a bad idea to have a framed copy of AAPG's Code of Ethics on the wall of your office, in plain view of your clients as well as yourself.

But it also would be good if AAPG, through its Division of Professional Affairs, would be much more aggressive about pursuing ethical violations.

Because ethical lapses come in varying degrees of severity, I think we should handle many ethical problems internally, through mediation, mentoring and warnings. Beyond that, sanction and expulsion should be more frequent, even if it does risk counter-litigation.

Finally, members might expect our professional associations to maintain a higher profile regarding ethical events:

  • Did AAPG, or AIPG or SIPES speak up promptly and prominently to condemn the Brea-X mining fraud a few years ago?
  • Our silence regarding the recent Enron scandal has been deafening.

Why haven't our professional associations spoken out through timely press releases to the media and articles in our own journals? Isn't that part of their proper purview? Or is the AAPG just a trade association?


This month's reading recommendation: Systems of Survival, by Jane Jacobs (1992 Vintage Books), a remarkably insightful little book about differing ethical systems and standards.

Read it — you'll like it!

You may also be interested in ...