This month I would like to thank all the superstar volunteers who put on excellent annual meetings of the Gulf Coast and Southwest Sections during April. It takes time to organize the technical and social events. It takes time to prepare and present the talks, posters, field trips and cores. The sponsors who rent booths and underwrite the events are so critically important and, of course, it takes you – the members – to actively participate, renew old ties, make new contacts and enjoy it all. Everyone contributes in his or her own way and all are appreciated!
What the HoD Vote Means
You might know that at the end of this month, our House of Delegates will meet to vote on a package of new Bylaws created under the “Reimagine” effort. It is important to understand that a positive vote on May 31 will merely allow the package (Bylaws plus a transition plan) to move forward to a fully democratic member vote over the summer. If the House vote is negative, the package will be stopped. Hence, if you want your own chance to help decide the future of AAPG, ask your delegates to vote “yes.” You can find your delegates AAPG.org, under the ‘About’ tab, under ‘Leadership,’ click ‘House of Delegates (HoD). Then, under the ‘HoD Pages’ column, click on ‘Delegates.’
Based on the feedback so far, it is my impression that most members who have thought about it one way or the other tend to agree with the large majority of AAPG leaders, past and present, in favor of the new Bylaws. This is consistent with the results of the community survey we ran in November 2022 to shape the Reimagine program in the first place:
- “AAPG must broaden and adapt to a changing energy landscape to remain relevant.”: 74 percent agree, 11 percent disagree.
- “A comprehensive review of AAPG’s structure and governance model is needed.”: 54 percent agree, 10 percent disagree.
- Top three responses to the open prompt, “If you could change one thing … ”:
- Broaden scope of membership/ subject areas.
- Focus on petroleum geoscience.
- Streamline governance/drop HoD.
Philosophical Differences
If you listen to the reasons members do or don’t support the proposed Bylaws, there are of course legitimate pros and cons. But what emerges in many cases seems to be two different philosophical views about the changing energy landscape and how AAPG should react.
In my President’s Column last November, I wrote that the energy transition should more properly be called the “energy addition.” Model scenarios by respected authorities show that total hydrocarbon production in 2050 might be roughly the same as today while the growth in energy demand will be satisfied by alternative energies, many of which require the same subsurface skills as petroleum E&P. You or colleagues might already be working frontier and/or mature basins for geothermal prospects, valuable brines, hydrogen targets, CCUS reservoirs and more. Subsurface energy storage, in which the earth is used to temporarily store excess energy from intermittent sources, might be poised to grow. Funding for research in all these areas is flowing to universities and providing support for students.
One way AAPG could respond is to recoil – contract to a pure petroleum focus, raise the drawbridge, bolt the doors and try to wish it all away. But in my mind, the energy addition creates an opportunity addition for geoscientists with skills, knowledge and experience gained in the oil patch. An individual can choose to stay with petroleum, or seize these new opportunities, or do some of each. Welcoming “all of the above” ensures a thriving AAPG that absolutely maintains its core petroleum focus but also lives in the present and will continue to be relevant in the future.
The proposed Bylaws forcefully address our intertwined challenges of membership and finances, but they will also be a referendum on how AAPG should react to the changing energy landscape: hide or embrace it. Do tell your delegates how you want them to vote.
Until next month,
Claudia Hackbarth