Search Documents

By Warren J. Jackson, John L. P. Campbell

Automatic recording of the radioactivity of the earth's formations provides a log of relative intensities that, if properly interpreted, can be applied to oil-field engineering. Production, engineering, and geological departments regard the radioactivity log as a forward step in the securing of more conclusive information for successful well completions. Explanations of the technique, together with some of the problems to which radioactivity logging have been applied, are presented in this paper. Introduction Those responsible for the completion of new oil and gas wells, or with planning workover operations on old wells, have followed closely the development of radioactivity well logging because they are interested in reducing the number of unknowns that usually are present in such work. Many operators have made use of the log, or are acquainted with at least one of the applications, but it is unlikely that any one operator is familiar with all of the many applications that are possible. The purpose of this paper is to present a representative example of each of the many applications, wherever the information has been released by an operator, and to illustrate by hypothetical examples other applications, releases for which have not been given. In this way, it is hoped that a better understanding of the scope of this new engineering tool may be obtained. Athough the literature contains many references that describe in detail the theory, development, and application of radioactivity well logging, a brief discussion of the technique may be helpful to those who are investigating the subject for the first time, All rocks contain radioactive material in varying concentrations. In general, shales contain relatively more radioactive material than sandstones or limestones. These radioactive materials disintegrate with time into other materials of lower atomic weight, and in that process of disintegration the rocks are emitting many rays, the most penetrating of which is the gamma ray. The intensity of emission of the gamma ray is proportional to the quantities of radioactive materials present. A higher rate of emission would be observed, therefore, opposite a shale than opposite a sandstone or limestone. Since measurable intensities of gamma rays are capable of penetrating as many as five concentric strings of casing, and as the gamma-ray intensity is relative to the formations, the measurements of variations in gamma-ray intensities offer a means of identifying cased-off formations in their proper stratigraphic sequence. TEe Gamma-ray Curve The measurement of gamma-ray intensi ties is accomplished by means of an ioniza-tion chamber that consists of a heavy cylinder, about 3 ft. long, that contains two insulated electrodes and is Med with an inert gas under high pressure. Under normal conditions no current will flow through the gas when an electrical potential is set up between the electrodes, but when

Jan 1, 1946

By G. E. Archie

Data given in this paper indicate that certain relations exist between different characteristics of sandstone. These relations are not rigid, for all sandstones are more or less heterogeneous. Not every increment of a given horizon follows exactly the relationship; however, studying a reservoir as a whole from a large number of samples, definite trends are found to exist. Apparently nature's processes of sedimentation and diagenesis are such as to give some degree of uniformity. Average relationships are valuable because electrical measurements in a borehole comprise a considerable volume of rock near the hole. Also, it is desirable that a given producing reservoir be studied as a unit. In a permeable reservoir whose pores are filled with a saline solution, it was found that the total porosity and the type of sandstone influence the relationship between its electrical resistivity and the RO and the resistivity of the brine R,. The relation can be expressed by the following empirical equation, Ro = R10O— [i] where 0 is the porosity expressed as a fraction and the numerical value of the exponent lies between 1.8 to 2.0 for consolidated sandstones, and is about 1.3 for clean, unconsolidated packs. This equation indicates that an appropriate electrical log can be used to estimate the porosity of a saline water-bearing reservoir when Rw and the type of rock are known. The fraction R0rw, is called the "formation resistivity factor." It reflects the effect of the nonconducting rock structure on the resistivity of the salt water that fills the tortuous paths through which the electricity must pass. The formation resistivity factor F is found to be related to permeability k. In this case the type of rock plays an important role, as shown by the relation F = ak-b [2] where the values of a and b must be determined experimentally for each horizon. Therefore Eq. I rather than Eq. 2 is used when it is desired to determine the value of F, because small changes in rock structure particularly in the pore size are not critical. Another useful relation, R = R0S- [3] where R = resistivity of rock when partially saturated with brine and partly with oil or gas, S = fraction of the pore space filled with brine, and n equals approximately 2 for both unconsolidated and consolidated sandstone, shows that the connate water of an oil or gas reservoir can be estimated in situ from a resistivity log. Equation 3 shows that in order to estimate the water content of a reservoir a knowledge of R and Ro is essential. The first value can be obtained from the electrical log when all factors influencing the resistivity curve can be properly taken into account. The latter may be obtained when a log is available on the same horizon where it is entirely water-bearing and has

Jan 1, 1946

By William M. Newton, John E. Sherborne

The value of the electric log as a means of interpreting underground structures has been increasingly demonstrated by its almost universal present-day use. It becomes important, therefore, to be able to evaluate the factors that affect the values obtained. By far the greatest number of electric logs are measured today in boreholes filled with rotary mud, the properties of which may exert an important influence on the electric log. In an effort to establish what the order of magnitude of such effects might be, a series of investigations was made in the laboratory and the field. Apparatus suitable for either field or laboratory use was designed and a procedure established for determining the factors that affect the resistivity of drilling muds over a wide variation in mud condition. Five muds representative of the types of clay-base muds employed in California were tested and the following observations were made: 1. The effect of raising the temperature from 8o° to i8o°F. is to decrease the resistivit~ of the mud or filtrate approximately 50 per cent. 2. The resistivity of the mud in most cases closely approximates that of its filtrate. 3. The change in the resistivities of muds caused by the addition of chemical is not the same function of the amount of chemical added for each mud. 4. The effect produced by increased sodium chloride content is to reduce markedly the resistivity of the mud and its filtrate. 5. Weighting materials, such as baroid and limestone, tend to increase the resistivity of drilling mud. 6. Cement and counteracting reagents reduce mud resistivity. The results of the investigation indicate that the mud resistivity is materially affected by the addition of electrolytes whether these are added for the purpose of conditioning the mud or enter the mud when salt beds or highly saline structures are penetrated. It should be observed, however, that the magnitude of the effect produced upon the electric log by changes in mud resistivity is also dependent upon the relative salinity of the water en. countered in the formation being logged. The laboratory data are supplemented by field data, which indicate that both the self-potential and resistivity curves are influenced by mud resistivity.

Jan 1, 1946

The papers that appear on pages 326 through 367 were presented at two joint meetings of the Mineral Industry Education Division, Geophysics Committee, the American Geophysical Union and the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, at the A.I.M.E. meeting in New York on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, the Mining Geology Committee, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Committee on Applications of Geology of the ilmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists also took part.

Jan 1, 1946

By W. C. Krumbein

Geological problems are approached from a geometrical (space relations) viewpoint, a kinematical (time sequence) viewpoint, or a dynamical viewpoint. The first two require sound training in conventional geology and in field methods. The third approach requires a solid foundation of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Modern training for geologists should include close integrltion of basic sciences with geological principles. Introduction Our knowledge of the earth has increased tremendously during the last half century. We know more about its surface configuration, the distribution of its natural resources, the proccssion of living forms that inhabited it in the past, the chemical composition of its oceans, the areal distribution of its surface rocks, the movements of its atmosphere, and so on. Not only do we know more facts about the earth, but we have a better understanding of the processes that take place on and within it, such as the nature of earthquakes, the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, the chemical equilibria involved in the formation of igneous rocks, the mechanics of stream flow, the dynamics of the earth's origin, and so on. Many sciences contributed to the sum total of this knowledge, including such established disciplines as geology, geography, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology. Out of this accumulation of new knowledge grew also a group of new sciences, such as seismology, oceanography, meteorology, volcanology, hydrology. Collectively these latter are known as the geophysical and geochemical sciences, and to a large extent they began as branches of geology. Until the turn of the century, for example, the study of earthquakes (seismology) was a part of geology, although as early as 1846 Mallet, a physicist, had suggested that the subject could be investigated by elastic-wave theory. Comparatively little progress was made along these lines until the seismograph was developed near the turn of the century; since then, additional earthquake data have accurnul~ted rapidly, but more important, the interpretation of these data essentially has kept pace with their accumulation. In similar fashion, meteorology was generally considered a branch of geology as recently as one or two decades ago. Considerable progress had been made in such aspects as weather forecasting, but the science dates its recent rapid rise from the year 1911, when Bjerknes first applied the principles of dynamics to the analysis of air masses. The rapid development of such disciplines as oceanography, volcanology and hydrology was due in part to the application of principles of chemical equilibrium, of dynamics, and of thermodynamics to earth problems, by men who were essentially physicists or chemists by training. The last half century, therefore, and particularly the last two decades, saw the influx of numerous chemists and physicists into the realm of the earth sciences. In the meantime the main body of geology itself showed a marked growth, and

Jan 1, 1946

By M. M. Slotnick

It was once aptly said that a sign of approaching senility is ceasing work on a subject and beginning to talk about it. Perhaps that explains why, after many Years in which Part of my duties has been the training of college men in various branches of petroleum exploration geophysics, I have now begun to talk about it. In making an outline of what I believe ought to be discussed under the general heading of the title, I found it almost impossible to subdivide the ideas into an ordered set of discrete subjects. Rather, the pertinent remarks seemed to interlock almost everywhere. The consequence is that it will be necessary to start with the conclusions and then try to justify them by jumping back and forth. However, based on the types of men with whom I have had to deal, the subject naturally divides itself into two parts. In the first part, I should like to deal with the case of those undergraduates whose natural bent is toward the physical sciences and who may decide to enter the geophysical fold as a career. The other part will deal with those many men, geologists and engineers for the most part, who have drifted into exploration geophysics by one means or another, and whom it is necessary to train for geophysical work while they are occupied in their routine jobs. Here it may be in point to remark that most men in exploration geophysics at Present have been developed from precisely the latter group, and that the problem of training here is of great importance even though, in this paper, it will perforce occupy the secondary place. Training oF a Geophysicist The outstanding reason for the perplexing problem on the training of a geophysi-cist is that ideas differ on the answer to the question: "what is a geophysicistp" ln any of the scientific "specialties," like physics, for example, it is relatively simple to pigeonhole a man as being qualified to call himself a physicist. That appellation applied to an individual does not mean that he has mastered only the branches of intellectual endeavor usually associated under the broad name of "physics." we expect him also to have a more than mere acquaintance with mathematics and chemist~ and some understanding of most of the other sciences. But note this important point—we expect our physicist, whom we have chosen as an example, to be intelligently trained so that, if necessary, he can and will know how and where he can get the proper information on a subject in which he is not a specialist; he will know how to absorb that information and turn it to his uses. It seems to me that this is the outstanding characteristic of a man who can truly call himself a scientist: that he is a specialist in one of the broad branches of science in that he has enough training and discipline in the scientific approach so that, when called upon to do so, he can inteugently absorb knowledge from another bordering science (and all sciences not only border upon one another to some extent, but more often, overlap One another), and

Jan 1, 1946

By Walter H. Bucher

This symposium is designed to lay the basis for a general discussion of the place of geophysics in the training of geologists. As there is danger that in the ensuing debate individual interests may be given emphasis out of proportion to their place, we shall do well to view the whole field of geological inquiry in order to see the problem in true perspective. The Nature of Geological Inquiry "Basic" and "Complex" Sciences It is convenient to divide all science into two major divisions, the basic and the complex sciences. The basic sciences separate out from reality such entities as "substances" and "movements," describe their behavior in terms of arbitrary units of measurement and derive from them by progressive abstractions concepts and patterns of behavior that exist between them, so-called general "laws" and "properties" of nature. The complex sciences, on the other hand, deal, with little or no abstraction, with those objects of reality that are accessible to man in the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere. Their work comprises two types of inquiry. One is concerned with abstractions to the extent of dealing with types rather than individuals—that is, with such things as plants, animals, protoplasm; clouds, streams, gla- ciers; volcanoes and mountain ranges. It comprises the search for general properties and patterns of behavior or "laws" that characterize the objects and their reactions to each other. These properties and laws apply always, everywhere. They are independent of the stream of time. We may call the results of this sort of inquiry timeless knowledge. The other type of inquiry is concerned with the objects themselves—that is, with this animal and that plant; this river system and that mountain chain; this glacier and that valley. Like all concrete objects in nature, they are subject to change with the passage of time, especially when it is measured in years, centuries, eons. The characteristics by which we recognize them —indeed, their very existence—are dependent on their position at this point in the stream of time. This we may call time-bound kntowledge. The so-called descriptive sciences are all bound to the past of which the objects of their study are the product and through which alone their present properties call be understood. They are historical sciences. This obvious fact is easily overlooked, which leads to serious misunderstanding, as we shall see later. Dynamic Geology With this broad picture in mind, let us now examine the nature of geological inquiry, defining, for the purposes of this discussion, geology as the science of rocks. Air is not a rock; water is. Meteorology and climatology are, correspondingly, gen-

Jan 1, 1946

By Benjamin L. Miller

The essential differences expressed by the different speakers participating in this symposium concern merely the relative emphasis placed on the subjects that are commonly included under the term "geophysics" and the branches of science that form the basis for investigations in this field. In order to appreciate the present situation it may be profitable to briefly refer to a few historical matters. One can find almost countless descriptions of geological phenomena long antedating the introduction of the title of "geology," which has been credited to Richard de Bury in the fourteenth century. Interpretations, when they were offered, were generally pure speculation. Only toward the close of the eighteenth century do we find theories developed as the result of observations and tested by additional observations. It is difficult to select and give proper credit to the individual who was particularly responsible for turning geology into a distinctly observational science. william Smith, who has been called the "Father of English Geology," certainly represents the period when observation was the only method used. As he traveled through the British Isles, "sometimes 10,000 miles in a year," he was continually making notes of his observations. Geikie says: "His plain, solid, matter of fact intellect never branched into theory or speculation, but occupied itself wholly in the observation of facts." William Smith, with others of his time, definitely laid firmly the foundations on which modern geology has been built. Field and laboratory observations can no longer be said to constitute the sole basis for geologic contributions but we have not laid aside the methods of Smith and his followers. It is folly to underestimate the fundamental value of the observational part of geology in the present. The objection to purely observational geology is that it is mainly qualitative and not quantitative, general and not specific. No one can deny this charge and probably there are few who do not welcome every method or process whereby we can put aside generalities for definite established values. Physics is the science that has particularly come to the aid of the geologist in this respect. Contributions of PhYsics It is not the intent of the writer to enumerate or to evaluate all of the contributions to geologic advance in the field of. physics. A few only are used for the purpose of illustration, When Clarence King, Director of the United States Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel, invited Ferdinand Zirkel to study 2500 thin sections of rocks collected from the western United States, the use of the microscope came into general use. Zirkel's report was published in 1876. He was not the first to use transmitted light for microscopic rock determination, some work having been done by Henry Clifton Sorby and others some years earlier, but he was the first to put into general use this method. We may well daim that this

Jan 1, 1946

By H. W. Straley

Some ten years ago the writer1 made a survey of college catalogues to determine what sort of training geologists were receiving in basic sciences. In the light of this compilation and subsequent experience, he made the statement at the 1939 meeting of the Institute that apparently only in schools offering a curriculum in geological engineering or in the geological option of mining engineering curricula could geologists hope to receive the training advocated by Hubbeet.2 In the former study, schools of engineering were excluded because the preparation was known beforehand. The present study aims to consider engineering schools in an effort to determine not only what basic studies are required but what use is made of them in geological courses of the third and fourth years. The present study combined the method of consulting catalogues with a questionnaire. Letters were mailed to officials responsible for supervision of mineral industries curricula requesting information On' (I) the extent to which the engineering preparation of the first two years is actually used in the work of the last two; (2) the extent to which the engineering of the last two years is used in courses in geological engineering or geology; and (3) whether geologists or geological engineers teach descriptively or analytically. Both methods of securing information are open to criticism; the former on the basis of the incomplete information supplied by university catalogues concerning prerequisites and curricula and the latter on the ground that the questions may be phrased poorly or given insufficient consideration by replying officials. Fifty-six questionnaires were mailed and 39 (70 per cent) replies were received. Of the replies, 6 (11.3 per cent) were from colleges of liberal arts unconnected with engineering schools, 11 (20 per cent) were from schools having curricula in geological engineering and 22 (39 per cent) were from departments of mining engineering. The number of replies and their distribution were satisfactory in spite of the receipt of only six from liberal arts colleges. It should be understood that the universities of which the catalogues were examined were not necessarily the same in both compilations. No departments that are admittedly or known to be acting solely as service departments were recorded in the second study. Table I shows that all professional schools require mathematics through calculus, whereas only 7 per cent of the liberal arts curricula expect the same level of preparation; only 73 per cent require trigonometry and 40 per cent college "algebra. The proportion of geological engineering curricula requiring differential equations is higher than mining. All of the engineering schools require general and analytical chemistry, whereas only 77 per cent of liberal arts curricula require general and 18 per cent analytical. Twenty-two per cent of the mining and 40 per cent of the geological engineering

Jan 1, 1946

By J. B. Macelwane

Geophysics differs from geology and physics in in many respects. In the first place, geophysics is a complex science embracing the fields of seismology, geomagnetism, geoelectricity, geodesy, meteorology, vol-canology, physical oceanography, physical hydrology, tectonophysics and exploration geophysics. Geology is also a complex science and so extensive in its various fields that no one can master them all, and no part of geology deals in any sense with several of these fields of geophysics. In the second place, geophysics makes use of methods and instruments that are derived primarily from the science of physics. Geology, on the other hand, has methods of its own and it draws its borrowed techniques and its instrumental equipment not only from physics but also and perhaps primarily from chemistry and biology. The difference, therefore, between the geophysicist and the geologist lies partly in the phenomena that are observed, partly in the methods and instruments with which each carries on his exploration; but partly also, and perhaps principally, in the habitual attitude of mind and in the background of specialized training with which each approaches the problems presented by this planet of ours. The geologist as such, therefore, is no geophysicist. On the other hand, the physicist is not a geophysicist either. Isolation of each problem in a closed laboratow system under complete control is fundamental to the methods of the physicist. The geophysicist must apply physical instruments and physicomathematical reasoning to the study of physical quantities in their undisturbed natural environment. What, then, is a geophysicist? In the sense that he is a trained expert in all of the geophysical sciences, I do not believe that such a person ever existed. It would be beyond the possibilities of a single lifetime. I think there is confusion in our ideas and in our use of terms. We are not all thinking of the same thing when we say geophysics or geophysicist; yet we seem to talk as though we were. It is as absurd to say that the whole of geophysics belongs to geology because the field of a particular type of geophysicist—the exploration geophysicist —calls for some knowledge of geology as it would be to say that the whole of biology belongs to geology because a particular type of biologist—the paleontologist— needs some knowledge of geology. Development of a Geophysicist Since it is impossible to become an expert in all the fields of geophysics, and since students entering college seldom know the field they will choose as a career, what would we suggest as the best general preparation for work in geophysics, whether as a meteorologist, an oceanographer, a seismologist, a geodesist, a geomagneticist, a volcanologist, a tectonophysicist, a hydro1 ogist, or an exploration geophysicistp we may distinguish five phases in the development of a geophysicist: (I) his mathematical and scientific studies in high school; (2) the general mathematical and scientific

Jan 1, 1946

By H. Landsberg

The curriculum presented here is an outgrowth of discussions by the Committee on Geophysics Courses of the A.I.M.E. in previous years. It had to be a compromise between the desires voiced by employers of geophysicists, professional geophysicists and the possibilities at an average college. There one has to face the questions of the available teaching staff, the inertia of administrators and teachers set in their ways, and the red tape involved in modernizing antiquated curricula. It is, of course, not ideal to have colleges and universities lag Io years behind the times. Rather, instead of being prodded by industry, they should be ahead of industrial needs. There should also be a certain amount of leeway for the student in any college curriculum. All these points had to be considered in drawing up a curriculum, which, instead of being narrowly termed "geology" or "geophysics" was rather called "earth science." It gives the student a chance to specialize in one of the various branches represented by teachers on the faculty of The Pennsylvania State College, giving as options Geology (with subdivisions of Mineralogy and Paleontology), Geophysics, Geography, and Meteorology. Table iA represents the option of geophysics in the curriculum that envisages that a student may want to make his career in any of the fields encompassed by the American Geophysical Union or in geoexploration. This is, of course, only the start of an education that in most cases will have to be followed by graduate work for complete professional training. The outlined curriculum is definitely of an engineering type and is identical for all of the four options mentioned for the first two years. Specialization will start in the junior year but even thereafter the branches are kept as closely allied as feasible in order to permit a student to change from one tO the other (e.g., because of a different aspect in the mployment situation) with a minimum of additional work. Table IB shows the geophysics option according to subject matter, indicating the considerable amount of work in the fundamentals of mathematics, physics and chemistry with a liberal number of geology courses, and some engineering. The courses in the field of geophysics are limited—just two lecture courses as a general introduction and one field course, to permit the student a visualization of the correlation between mathematically analyzed physical data and the geological realities. Thesis work is considered essential to teach the student, while he is still in college, some things S. F. Kelly has mentioned as desirable: (I) following of instructions for somewhat independent work; (2) organizing of material, and (3) producing a readable report. This, together with the personal contact with the advising faculty member, will help in forming a student's personality. The seminar course attempts to get the student into the habit of reading current literature, so that he can keep abreast of the times.

Jan 1, 1946

The papers discussed in the following pages were presented during two sessions of the Geophysics Education Committee of the Mineral Industry Education Division on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, to consider the "Influence of Geophysics upon Geology Curricula," this Committee was joined by the Geophysics and Mining Geology Committees of the A.I.M.E., the Society of Economic Geologists, representatives of the American Geophysical Union, and delegates from the Committees on College Curricula and on Applications of Geology of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Quentin D. Singewald and Sherwin F. Kelly presided. At the ensuing session, especially emphasizing the integration of geology, physics and chemistry for the solution of earth problems, the joint participants with the Geophysics Education Committee were the Geophysics Committee, and representatives of the American Geophysical Union and of the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Richard M. Field and W. R. Chedsey presided. In the following summary of the discussion at the two meetings, written discussion submitted subsequently is not differentiated from that offered orally at the session. A provisional report of the Geophysics Education Committee was presented at the second session, and some of the following discussion refers to it. This report has not been printed (it is anticipated that a more comprehensive, final one will be rendered at the 1942 annual meeting). A few mimeographed copies of this provisional report were made. Dr. W. P. Haynes presented some notes prepared by Dr. F. H. Lahee, Chairman of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists' Committee on College Curricula. This Com- mittee's inquiries reveal the general opinion that a four-year academic preparation is inadequate, five or six being advisable. The fundamentals, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and English composition, should be stressed in the first three years, with specialization in the last two or three years. Some companies provide an apprenticeship period, and themselves give additional training. During academic years more attention needs to be given to engineering training, to field mapping, and in geology to stratigraphy and sedimentation. The amount of mere memory work should be cut, and men trained to observe and reason. Dr. Lahee emphasized the need of more adequate preparation in English composition, because of the inability of many graduates to compose acceptable reports. Sherwin F. Kelly pointed out that much time in university training, which ought to be devoted to technical subjects, was taken .up with English courses. He emphasized that it is the part of the universities to demand of the high schools that the students they send to the university be properly trained to speak and write English. Prof. W. T. Thom protested against the crowding of high-school material into already overcrowded college curricula. C. E. Dobbin, chairman of the Committee on Applications of Geology of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, described briefly the work of his committee in publicizing geology, and said that it found a widespread popular interest in the subject but a lack of appreciation of its importance. He recommended that attempts to coordinate the works of geologists and geophysicists be expanded somewhat toward the further developing and encouraging of a "species of geopolitician" capable of assisting the progress of geology and geophysics by more vigorous advertising of

Jan 1, 1946

For four years your Committee has been engaged in the study of problems connected with the educational preparation of professional geophysicists. The Present report represents the conclusions drawn from the investigations and deliberations undertaken since it was first organized. These studies have shown that the evolution of geophysics has proceeded along lines that differed from those marking the advance of classical geology. The latter science developed as a descriptive one, dealing with directly observable terrestrial phenomena, and the elementary, rational explanations that could be offered therefor. The fact that these phenomena were also chemical and physical in nature was seldom given more than passing acknowledgment. During the last half century, however, a new approach to problems of terrestrial phenomena has become of greater significance. This new attack has come through the sciences of physics and chemistry, as the people trained therein have investigated the facts of the earth as problems in their respective sciences. This development has been chiefly at the hands of European investigators, and European universities have long recognized it by establishing departments or institutions of geophysics. In the universities of North America, their arbitrary departmentalization into fields of physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc., has prevented the academic recognition of such domains of science as geophysics and geochemistry. In consequence, the development of these subjects in the United States has been largely at the hands of nonacademic institutions, while the universities themselves are evidently in a state of confusion as to how the subject should be handled. In some places an attempt to teach geophysics is made in the physics department, in others in the geology department, in some in the engineering school, and occasionally as a cooperative effort; a Department of Geophysics is seldom found in North America. In some instances, proper academic plan. ning has been precluded by interdepart. mental jealousies, or by lack of appreciation of the significance of the subject. For the background upon which these conclusions are based, the reader is referred to reports previously issued or SPonsored by Your Committee. The "First Report of the A.I.M.E. Mineral Industry Education Division's Committee of Geophysics Education, 1939," summarizes the replies received to question-

Jan 1, 1946

By Donald C. Branford

The place of geophysics in the curriculum of a college or an engineering school has been much discussed. There is uncertainty as to whether the graduate may be called a "geological geophysicist" or a "geophysical geologist." Some have used the term "geophysical engineer." The question of the specialized undergraduate curriculum versus a general undergraduate training in the parent sciences with the addition of cultural electives has been and is still being argued. The literature during the past Io years shows that there are two rather definite schools of thought on this subject. The prospective employer, engaged in active geophysical exploration, visualizes the graduate in terms of the routine work he will do in the field. The school administrator, grounded in many years of tradition in the cultural type of education, visualizes the graduate in terms of his position in a political and cultural society as well as in his work as a professional geophysicist. Both are right and both wrong. A third school of thought, that of the student himself, has been almost totally ignored. It would seem best, for the purpose of this paper, to treat these various points and allied material separately, and then to integrate the conclusions as a set of conditions that should be fulfilled as far as possible in the ideal curriculum. At the end the relationship of our findings to the curriculum that has been tentatively adopted at the University of Pittsburgh will be considered. Divisions in Definition or Field of Geophysics Geophysics is that field of science in which geological and earth problems are solved with the use of physical and chemical techniques. Altogether too much attention has been paid to the artificial separation in this science of the commercial applications from the so-called "pure" or academic geophysics. The only real difference in the two types of work is one of scale of operations. In the commercial field the scale is large in terms of fmancial backing, immediate economic importance, and speed of operations. In the academic field the scale is large in terms of breadth of interests, in eventual economic importance, and length of time allowable for theoretical investigations. In exploration work the scale is small in terms of dimensions, since the methods are applicable only to the outer 20,000 ft. or SO of the earth's crust. In academic work, the student is not pressed for results of immediate economic importance, and therefore can afford to spend more time on problems that seem unimportant at the time. In the sense of background knowledge of the parent sciences necessary to the geophysicist, no essential difference can be found. Physics, chemistry, geology, and mathematics together, and in their proper proportionate amounts, form the matrix from which geophysical ideas and methods may spring.

Jan 1, 1946

The Geophysics Education Committee has devoted several years to a consideration of the problem of training geophysi-cists. Past reports have dealt largely with fact finding and with the discussion of particular aspects of geophysical education. In the present report it is proposed to review the subject more comprehensively. This involves the question of what educational qualifications the geophysicist of the highest professional standards should possess, and the related question of what changes must be effected in existing educational institutions in order that prospective professional geophysicists may obtain instruction of the desired quality. The type of geophysicist here contemplated is one familiar with what is known already in the several branches of earth physics, and capable not only of following contemporary progress in any of these branches, but of contributing to that progress in a research capacity. Geophysics in its broadest sense, as has been emphasized repeatedly by this Committee, is the study of the physics of the earth and of terrestrial processes. This includes both the static and the dynamic characteristics of the gaseous, the liquid, and the solid portions of the earth, as well as its gravitational, thermal, and magnetic and electrical manifestations. Some branches of earth physics have been cultivated but slightly; others have reached an advanced state of development. Those branches whose development is sufficient to warrant explicit recognition in the form of organized Sections of the American Geophysical Union are: geodesy, seismology, tectonophysics, and volcanology, dealing with the rock constituents of the earth; oceanography and hydrology with the aqueous constituents; meteorology with the atmospheric constituents; and terrestrial electricity and magnetism with the electromagnetic manifestations. At present, instruction on the professional level in any of these branches of earth physics can be obtained in but few universities in North America. In most institutions where such instruction is undertaken different subjects are given in different and independent departments. Geodesy and hydrology are taught, if at all, as a part of civil engineering. The nearest approach to volcanology and tectonophysics ordinarily is represented by petrology and structural geology given

Jan 1, 1946

and would also contribute to the post-war employment. -As far as the future is concerned, I doubt whether any of the present geophysical methods will ever be developed to directly indicate ore. However, the geochemical methods and certain combinations between chemical and geological methods now used might be the answer to our prayers for direct and more definite methods of determining the quality of the ore or its relative metal content. Geochemical and spectrochemical analysis of minute content in ground waters, in soil or in plants and trees, living or dead, will be extremely important and I would venture to predict that in the very near future each mining or exploration company and each assay oflice will have its own spectroscope equipped for accurate chemical analysis, not only to guide the daily work in the mine, but also for identifying ores as well as for guiding exploration, geological mapping and the evaluation of geophysical indications. These methods, although they are still in their infancy, promise very much for the future. Radioactivity methods could also be helpful when sufficient facilities for radioactivity determination can be made available. They have already been used to a great extent in oil exploration and experiments have shomn great promise for ore exploration also. As for future surveys of large areas, the exploration for physical contrasts will be made from the air, using aeroplanes, helicopters, etc. Already electrical and magnetic methods have been designed whereby the instruments are carried in the aircraft and by automatic recording the location of anomalies is made in a simple enough manner. It should be possible in this way to cover, say, a square mile in an hour. Later Discussion Replies to Dr Lundberg. J. B. Macelwane.*—Someone has said that if a person knows his subject well enough he can explain it in words of one syllable. The point is well taken and I think the converse is also true. If a person cannot explain a subject clearly in simple words, it is either because he has not sufficient command of the language, or he is not master of his subject. Now it is obvious, it seems to me, that the remedy for both of these unfortunate conditions lies not in less education, but in more. If Dr. Lundberg has met geophysicists who confused and discouraged prospective clients by their inability to talk the language of the mine owner or of the mining engineer or geologist, the fault most probably lay in the geophysicist's lack of sufficient training; but it may also have been the want of ordinary common sense, which no amount of education can supply. It is hard to understand the position taken by Dr. Lundberg. Does he regret his own extensive training? noes he wish to say that he would have had greater success in geophysics if he had been only a mine hand with an instrument and a rule of thumb? As a matter of fact, I find it rather difficult to account for his presentation before this Committee on Geophysics of an emotionally distorted picture of the Report of the Committee on Geophysical Education, after the lapse of an entire year since the Report was read and discussed in its proper place, unless he honestly thinks he is handicapped by his knowledge and training and wishes to warn the whole profession against a similar fate. I regret that I am obliged to disagree so emphatically with Dr. Lundberg's thesis— but I believe it would be dangerous if left unchallenged, both because of the inaccurate statements it contains concerning the recommendations made in the Report and because of the ultimate discredit that would be bound to fall upon genuine geophysics if Dr. Lundberg's recommendations were extensively followed out. S. F. Kelly.*-—The argument that a science and its practitioners can be improved by debasing the standard of educational preparation is indeed a strange argument to come from the pen of a man with the education of Dr. Hans Lundberg. In criticising the Committee report, moreover, he has to a certain extent set up a straw man to belabor. The statement that the Committee report recommends that

Jan 1, 1946

Jan 1, 1946

By Gail F. Moulton

In spite of an increase of 7 cents per barrel in the posted price of oil for the Panhandle field effective June 16, 1943, there was less drilling during 1943 than ir, any of the several previous years. The drilling statistics are compiled as Table 2 and show the material increase in the percentage of the total number of field wells completed as dry holes. This increase suggests that the productive area of the field is largely drilled up on the well-spacing pattern now followed and that new discoveries will be required to permit any important new activity in the area. The fact that only four wildcats were drilled in the area during the year indicates that some new prospecting technique or some ncw point of view is required to stimulate exploration. No new producing areas were discovered during 1943 and no additions to oil reserves were made through extensions or discovery 'of new pays. Accordingly, the proven reserves in the area declined by the amount of the production, or nearly 31 million barrels. These results of drilling are similar to those obtained during 1942, whcn no new oil areas were discovered as a result of wild-catting, a total of five wildcat wells in 1942 resulting in four failures and one gas-fieid discovery of undetermined merit. sion. The number of oil-producing wells reported by the Commission increased during the year by 163 to a total of 5576 as of December.

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1946

Jan 1, 1946