|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2022 20:19:02 GMT
This is a place to discuss the future of SEG. What path should we take? Why? What trends do you think are important? How do you suggest we respond to those trends?
There is a thread for more "official" communications, from the President, from the Strategic Options Task Force. We'll post those communications there, and you are encouraged to respond. This thread can be for additional thoughts, insights and suggestions, even not related to the communications.
One of our hopes is that members and stakeholders will participate in a dialogue, not just with the task force, but with each other. We on the Strategic Options Task Force have found it very useful talking through things with members, thinking about different data, and hashing out our views.
Please, let's be courteous. This Forum is moderated and personal assaults, posts on national politics, or other unrelated or undesirable topics will be deleted. Please keep the discussion related to SEG and it's future.
|
|
|
|
Post by mwvandermolen on Mar 8, 2022 18:12:27 GMT
Hello,
let me kick off the discussion by sharing my views:
I believe that there is clear overlap and synergy with geological associations (i.e. AAPG), similar to how EAGE covers both Geology & Geophysics. However I see less synergy and benefit in a merger with SPE (and also fear we would drown in that much bigger organization with a very different setup and culture). So if the merger of AAPG with SPE is a given, I would not support a merger with them.
I notice people in my network tend to choose between SEG and EAGE, as both provide similar benefits (conference, magazine, lectures, networking). Indeed I myself only attend either the EAGE conference (when based in Europe or Asia) or the SEG annual (when based in the US). Both the EAGE (which was originally focused mainly/exclusively on Europe) and the SEG (mainly US focused) have been trying to internationalize in recent years, increasing the overlap in target audience. So I think there is a clear case for a merger of both organizations, which would also give us a solid basis as an integrated geoscience association, rather than a purely geophysical one, given that the EAGE already provides that.
This might then encourage geologists who do not feel ‘at home’ in a merged AAPG/SPE to join us.
My 2c.
Matthijs
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2022 20:18:48 GMT
Thanks Matthijs,
There has been some discussion around the potential connections between AAPG, EAGE, SPE, and SEG. Some view AAPG as a natural connection since both AAPG and SEG focus on the geosciences. Others look more at approach and mindset and think there is a much more natural fit with SPE. Both SPE and SEG have a more analytics mindset and approach. So the synergy depends on viewpoint. Either way, I think we have great opportunities to collaborate will all those societies, and others as well.
You point out the overlap of meetings. This is something we hear from exhibitors and supporting companies, a lot. I agree the market for meetings and workshops is quite saturated and something needs to change. Many exhibitors can't or won't attend so many meetings. A merger of organizations is one way to address that. I am personally not convinced that a merger is the ONLY way to address it though. For example, SEG and AAPG have combined their annual meetings into Image. That accomplished the objective of simplifying the meeting schedule without going all the way to merging. There are cost savings, which are required. There are also benefits in terms a broader range of topics being presented at the same event. Fewer, higher quality meetings could be a good path forward. We also have other meetings that are held jointly with other societies (NAPE, OTC, EiD, etc). I think this is a great model: problem focused collaborations with different participants depending on the specific problem.
You might be right that SEG and EAGE are experiencing more overlap as they both go more international. For any merger to succeed both sides would need to be interested. In the mean time, both sides ARE interested in greater collaboration so we can see where that gets us. Both sides do, I think, see similar challenges and benefits from collaboration.
Ken Tubman
|
|
