no reason to be in houston except that every one else is already here..... the carcinogenic coast!

Pretty accurate.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

nu awlins ag said:

---

Cyp0111 said:

---

Too easy for questionable ethics and excessive risk taking to make an outsized profit. Weak corporate governance across the board and deal guys have really hurt the industry. In process of wiping that out. A&M Engineers also need to take corporate finance classes as part of mandated undergrad course schedule.

---

Not just A&M, but every school should have at least 2-3 classes they take. You could get rid of 1-2 classes I'm sure.

---

Actually wouldn't be a bad idea to make an ethics class a core requirement for all students. Probably better than some of the other things they are required to take.

---

I know that A&M has a business ethics course (infamous headlines made when a cheating scandal was uncovered) and an engineering ethics course. I TA'd the engineering ethics in grad school and it's mandatory for all engineering students. I can't speak to the business ethics course, but most ethics courses are geared as just case study analysis. The engineering ethics course is world class in forcing the students dig deeper and debate philosophically about case design and business decisions. It's an interesting litmus test for engineers because it requires lots of abstract thought and there are no cut and dry answers. Students either love it or hate it. Most students who enjoy it and excel at it are easy to visualize them being extremely successful as engineers. It's led by the philosophy department and has engineering professors involved as well. They just won a big grant to track their outcomes and help spread its success to other engineering programs.

Off topic but I couldn't help myself.

---

What bothered me most about this class is you say "there are no cut and dry answers" yet both exams were multiple choice with exact answers. I agree - there are no cut and dry answers which is what bugged me about the multiple choice exams. Also, the philosophy TA had an axe to grind against engineers. I also think the class maybe shouldn't be put as the last semester as some engineers have a bit of senioritis at that point. Maybe the 2nd to last semester would be best.

I do agree with the idea of the class though.

Speaking of curriculum: the PETE department HAS to incorporate some an alternative energy course or two if we expect to have a seat at the table in the coming decades.

Comeby! said:

---

Speaking of curriculum: the PETE department HAS to incorporate some an alternative energy course or two if we expect to have a seat at the table in the coming decades.

---

A course discussing Fischer-Tropsch, bio diesel, and algae biofuels makes sense.

Not sure PETE is the right place for wind/tidal/solar/wave power though. We do have other engineering departments that are a better fit for those.

I just don't see a PETE degree on the resume as the best path to a career in alternative energy for someone starting school now.

Comeby! said:

---

Speaking of curriculum: the PETE department HAS to incorporate some an alternative energy course or two if we expect to have a seat at the table in the coming decades.

---

What in the world would a petroleum engineer do with that. No one is hiring a PETE to build a solar farm and a couple of courses won't change that, they'll just take hours of curriculum away from the classes that build a useful skill set. If someone wants to work in alternative energy that's great, they can get a mechanical, chemical, or civil engineering degree at A&M.

I wouldn't advise anybody getting a PETE degree these days.

Better to get a chemical or mechanical and take a few professional training courses or on-the-job training.

Comeby! said:

---

Speaking of curriculum: the PETE department HAS to incorporate some an alternative energy course or two if we expect to have a seat at the table in the coming decades.

---

I would ask 'why?' but someone else already did. It feeds into a bigger question though; What is the purpose of a PETE undergrad degree? PETE's (and other niche engineering degrees) are valuable because those students know exactly what they want to go do when they graduate, and there are a lot of specific technical challenges that are taught early on. Industry loves it because those students graduate and are already fully immersed in the lingo, challenges, and technical requirements to succeed in that field. It is essentially on the job training subsidized by the university. (This ideologically has not been the role of a university). The double edge sword is, of course, PETE degrees have very little value outside the OG industry. Those students who have been studying reservoir decline curves in undergrad instead of engineering design theory are at a huge disadvantage when trying to jump industries in their career.

So now back to your idea about teaching them alternative energy: it would just be surface level overviews. The technical challenges of alternative energy belong to other, more broad engineering disciplines. Biofuels is advanced chemistry, solar and wind are mechanical+electrical. Nuclear is nuclear. The PETE department is extremely 'applied' and not theoretical at all. Trying to get those students to grasp something completely out of their discipline, or training wouldn't serve them any good. They chose to specify in a time when they could've been more general, let them do so.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

The PETE department is extremely 'applied' and not theoretical at all.

---

I agree with this statement in the "applied physics" vs "theoretical physics" sense: the core of reservoir engineering is a heat diffusion problem that's been applied to flow of liquids and gases through rocks.

However, the statement could be read as "PETE is extremely 'non-technical'" and I would take issue with that. Reservoir engineering is a very technical discipline, and A&M is by far the most technical PETE school where I've recruited. Many other schools have taken the "applied" thing way to far and as a result their students don't graduate with the problem solving skills learned at a *cough* real engineering school like A&M.

To say petroleum engineers at A&M couldn't be capable of moving into the alternative energy space is short sighted. There's already several that I personally know. The base curriculum at A&M is exactly the same for all engineers. Electrical, chemical and mechanical engineers can go into literally hundreds of disciplines: from auto and heavy machinery to consumer goods to building weapons systems. So adding a class or two on solar, wind and possibly nucleares an elective like they do for advanced drilling would not hurt the quality of PETE. When I say PETE's need a seat at the table, I'm saying they need to understand the underlying engineering concepts and economics of these other fields. At some point there will be 'energy' engineers at schools, like it or not and A&M needs to be on the cutting edge.

Comeby! said:

---

To say petroleum engineers at A&M couldn't be capable of moving into the alternative energy space is short sighted. There's already several that I personally know. The base curriculum at A&M is exactly the same for all engineers. Electrical, chemical and mechanical engineers can go into literally hundreds of disciplines: from auto and heavy machinery to consumer goods to building weapons systems. So adding a class or two on solar, wind and possibly nucleares an elective like they do for advanced drilling would not hurt the quality of PETE. When I say PETE's need a seat at the table, I'm saying they need to understand the underlying engineering concepts and economics of these other fields. At some point there will be 'energy' engineers at schools, like it or not and A&M needs to be on the cutting edge.

---

If you are a proponent of this then you should be a proponent of changing the major to Energy Engineering. Calling it a PETE degree and having required curriculum about nuclear, solar, and wind just doesn't really make sense to me. Those aren't petroleum engineering. If you are interested in those things, be a ME, CE, EE, etc.

No one is saying they couldn't be capable. If they want those skillsets then they shouldn't major it PETE. JMO. And for what it's worth, I'm a Mechanical Engineer doing Reservoir Engineering now. I didn't have a single PETE class in college and got here by learning on the job.

K_P said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

The PETE department is extremely 'applied' and not theoretical at all.

---

I agree with this statement in the "applied physics" vs "theoretical physics" sense: the core of reservoir engineering is a heat diffusion problem that's been applied to flow of liquids and gases through rocks.

However, the statement could be read as "PETE is extremely 'non-technical'" and I would take issue with that. Reservoir engineering is a very technical discipline, and A&M is by far the most technical PETE school where I've recruited. Many other schools have taken the "applied" thing way to far and as a result their students don't graduate with the problem solving skills learned at a *cough* real engineering school like A&M.

---

KP we are on the same page. I wouldn't dare call it non-technical because it is deeply technical.

TheMasterplan said:

---

I wouldn't advise anybody getting a PETE degree these days.

Better to get a chemical or mechanical and take a few professional training courses or on-the-job training.

---

When I taught fish CHEN/PETE engineers in ENGR 112, I told them "you can train a CHEN major to do what a PETE does; you can't go the other way".

And I've only ever met one CHEN person who changed TO PETE (to be fair, it was to go back and get a PhD in PETE with a BS in CHEN).

~egon

Quote:

---

When I taught fish CHEN/PETE engineers in ENGR 112, I told them "you can train a CHEN major to do what a PETE does; you can't go the other way".

---

Bingo. I've heard this a 1000 times. I've told my son that if he wants the engineering degree, then study chemical or mechanical. Thankfully he loves chemistry.

I think we will end up at Energy Engineering at some point.

How many of you that are vocal opponents of this are PETE's?

See no reason for that to be under PETE. It should either be a separate degree plan or fall under another degree path. Still stand by my view that PETEs need baseline capital allocation and/or corporate finance.

In the same vein about the cautionary tale of overspecialization, during my time TAing Engineering Ethics the PETE's weren't the worse off during the 2014 downturn. Yeah they were concerned about their futures, but the Ocean engineers didn't have a prayer. On its best day, the ocean specialty industry had basically two places you could wind up: Construction firm who built offshore platforms/tools or working for an environmental agency analyzing shores/oceans. You could maybe join shipbuilder if you were lucky. It was already a thin field that required advanced degrees to get a good job in the field.

Most students I talked to in that degree were either two ends of the spectrum: Extremely smart and motivated, or barely above academic probation and under direct orders from the university to pick between this degree or becoming a manufacturing & mechanical engineering technologist. Made for some interesting dynamics.

When offshore fell apart the students all rushed for the government jobs that were already ultra competitive. One student I kept up with worked their way into using an ocean degree for a mechanical design role at a small company.

I've often wondered if this is really true to the extent it's made out to be.

Anybody know of anybody who majored in MEEN, drilled wells for 10 years and then switched to building cars?? (And did real engineering in both jobs.)

To me this seems very, very unlikely which is why I decided to do the PETE route.

K_P said:

---

I've often wondered if this is really true to the extent it's made out to be.

Anybody know of anybody who majored in MEEN, drilled wells for 10 years and then switched to building cars?? (And did real engineering in both jobs.)

To me this seems very, very unlikely which is why I decided to do the PETE route.

---

Well, depends on your competency. If a MEEN ran off to the field and became a drilling engineer, then no I don't think there is an easy switch to any other industry. But if that MEEN did FEA analysis on oil and gas tools as part of a design based office job, then yeah there are industry switches like that all the time. They aren't taking their industry knowledge to the next job, but their design and FEA experience.

Same thing when your changing any industry, a successful candidate isn't starting over they are bringing something from their previous career. It could be technical knowledge or management experience.

Right - I would say doing mechanical engineering in the O&G sector is different than a mechanical engineer that gets a petroleum engineering job. Sounds like we're on the same page.

Once you take that first reservoir, production, completions, drilling, etc. job as a MEEN or CHEN it becomes harder and harder to switch into a different industry.

So if the advice is "be a mechanical engineer and focus on FEA work on tools because everybody making anything needs it" I'm totally fine with that. But if a kid thinks that it would be exciting to design and direct a frac job as a completions engineer (or whatever petroleum engineering job) then why should they major in mechanical? That's my point.

I have a buddy who did 4 years of pretty industry specific work for an operator with an EE/CompSci degree from MIT. He is now pivoting to tech. But an MIT diploma affords that whereas an A&M one might not, and that was only 4 years.

GarlandAg2012 said:

---

I have a buddy who did 4 years of pretty industry specific work for an operator with an EE/CompSci degree from MIT. He is now pivoting to tech. But an MIT diploma affords that whereas an A&M one might not, and that was only 4 years.

---

Yeah he had about everything going for him he could. Experience but not too much, MIT background, EE/CompSci degree, and moving into a field that would pay him even more so he wasn't exactly a comp outlier.

Did he move to the bay area?

We had a number of folks leave the industry after 2014 to do similar.

Dr. Doctor said:

---

When I taught fish CHEN/PETE engineers in ENGR 112, I told them "you can train a CHEN major to do what a PETE does; you can't go the other way".

---

As a PETE major who is currently building electrical distribution systems, I disagree. While I get the sentiment that PETE is much more specialized, it was my experience that A&M did a pretty good job teaching the critical thinking and technical skill sets needed to be a good general engineer, which can be applied to any field. You may just have to seek out additional training if you want to jump fields, but the base should be there.

That being said though, I would be all on board adding some other courses to the PETE program, whether that be alternative energy, corporate finance, oil and gas law, or any number of things that would have been helpful to know going into the industry. And you don't have to water down the PETE curriculum to do so, just replace some of the classes from the common core like "creative arts", "american history" or "social and behavioral science".

one MEEN Ag said:

---

GarlandAg2012 said:

---

I have a buddy who did 4 years of pretty industry specific work for an operator with an EE/CompSci degree from MIT. He is now pivoting to tech. But an MIT diploma affords that whereas an A&M one might not, and that was only 4 years.

---

Yeah he had about everything going for him he could. Experience but not too much, MIT background, EE/CompSci degree, and moving into a field that would pay him even more so he wasn't exactly a comp outlier.

Did he move to the bay area?

---

Yes he did.

Lol

https://imgur.com/a/tGWg1MK

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

Dr. Doctor said:

---

When I taught fish CHEN/PETE engineers in ENGR 112, I told them "you can train a CHEN major to do what a PETE does; you can't go the other way".

---

As a PETE major who is currently building electrical distribution systems, I disagree. While I get the sentiment that PETE is much more specialized, it was my experience that A&M did a pretty good job teaching the critical thinking and technical skill sets needed to be a good general engineer, which can be applied to any field. You may just have to seek out additional training if you want to jump fields, but the base should be there.

That being said though, I would be all on board adding some other courses to the PETE program, whether that be alternative energy, corporate finance, oil and gas law, or any number of things that would have been helpful to know going into the industry. And you don't have to water down the PETE curriculum to do so, just replace some of the classes from the common core like "creative arts", "american history" or "social and behavioral science".

---

Well, good luck with that, since the common core is determined at the university level and neither the college nor the department can just opt out.

Sure would be nice to not have to waste time in THAR 281 or HLTH 236 though

Not to derail the thread too much, but....

The point of a University is to produce well-rounded individuals who are technically trained. This means you have to take "BS Classes" like history, poly sci, arts, etc. The whole left/right brain thing.

If you don't want that, then you should go to a College. A college was/is more technically focused and not the "well rounded" education bit.

There is (supposed) to be a difference between the two. Part of the problem is the drive to push everyone to "college" waters down the University, as people intermix the two. College would be great for a vast majority of kids; get technical training that would allow employers to hire them and not spend much on training, as the kids coming out would know what to do.

To give an analogy of cars and mechanics (if things were perfect):

A HS graduate would know what a car is and what the major parts are. No idea (unless parent's were involved and taught kid) on business or other aspects of the car business.

A College graduate would know that if the car doesn't start, the problem lies in fuel, gas or air. And should be able to fix it, but would not be great at designing a new car (at least right out of the gate, usually). They might understand some basic finance of running a shop, but only in hourly rates and pay; nothing on running the business or non-car 'stuff'. No idea of manufacturing the car, why A does B or why system C is on the car (other than "the gov't told me to put it there. If I remove it, I go faster").

A University graduate would be able to design the new car and understand why changing X, Y and Z gives better fuel economy or better performance. They might not be able to fix everything on the car (as they did not deal with the 'practical' aspects of car maintenance), but also understands the finance of making the car, the history of making cars and potentially seeing what the future holds. Understands the mandates from gov't and/or industry and tries to minimize the cost/impact on their car/design.


I realize the analogy isn't perfect, but hopefully gives an understanding of what's going on. One major problem with making most ENGR courses at A&M more "hands on" is you run the risk of going from "University" to "College" type degree.

A&M Kingsville, before and partially when I was at A&M Main, lost accreditation (for CHEN majors) due to being essentially a Gas Engineer. They focused ONLY on Nat Gas production (from well heads to plant) and not much else. While that may have been great for local employers, it hurts the students long term because they don't understand other areas and avenues which are open to them elsewhere. They have fixed the issue, but it takes a while. And more $$$ to re-certify.

~egon

Any of you at the Hart's A&D in Dallas?

Cudd closing pumping services in Kilgore and SA. Sucks for those guys as I know quite a few.

nu awlins ag said:

---

Cudd closing pumping services in Kilgore and SA. Sucks for those guys as I know quite a few.

---

Completely out of South Texas?

As far as I know. Maybe they keep some things, but no pumping that much I do know.

Not going to be the last, rumblings of ProFrac in Marshall scaling way back as well.

nu awlins ag said:

---

As far as I know. Maybe they keep some things, but no pumping that much I do know.

---

That's wild. They were still sending out bids in STX within the last few weeks.