July 2000 Vol. 221 No. 7  Editorial

Thomas R. Wright, Jr.,  Editorial Director

Help wanted

With the strong economy running throughout the U.S, plus the fact that some major oil companies are still consolidating, a recent study is understandably pessimistic about the oil industry’s chances of finding enough people to handle a substantial boost in activity. Arthur L. Smith, CEO of John S. Herold, Inc., said in "Downsizing’s Downside: Energy Industry Facing Severe Personnel Crunch," that the largest oil companies have shed 5.2% of their workforce every year for the past 12 years. And again last year, the ten largest oil companies cut another 38,800 workers.

Obviously, one would expect that with high oil and gas prices and the outlook for sustained demand, that energy sector employment would be expanding. But Smith points to personnel-reduction programs that resulted from consolidation among the likes of ExxonMobil and BP Amoco and wonders why the downsizing momentum continues despite today’s positive energy market.

Smith questions industry’s ability to ramp-up activity – he envisions a lack of both veteran and young energy professionals. Layoffs and retirements have reduced the pool of experienced employees, and less than 600 petroleum engineers are enrolled in U.S. universities. He also sees a problem in recruiting new personnel because of the tarnished image industry has brought upon itself. Smith feels that "the energy industry is tarred with being a mature, low-growth, old-economy sector, making it unattractive to bright, new talent. At worst, energy companies can be charged with brutal and short-sighted treatment of their people – their greatest asset."

Hire one like this – if you can. Considering the above discussion on personnel shortages, a company would do well to find a person like the one in the following story. We agree with the saying that "a sense of humor is a sign of intelligence," and are especially encouraged when one can bring about humor in a technical discussion.

It seems that the following question was part of a physics exam: "Describe how to determine the height of a skyscraper using a barometer."

One student replied: "Tie a long piece of string to the neck of the barometer, then lower the barometer from the roof of the skyscraper to the ground. The length of the string plus the length of the barometer will equal the height of the building."

Reportedly, this unique answer so incensed the examiner that the student was failed immediately. The student appealed on grounds that his answer was indisputably correct. An independent arbiter, appointed by the university to decide the case, ultimately judged the answer correct. However, since the answer did not display a knowledge of physics, the student was given six minutes in which to provide a verbal answer that showed at least a minimal familiarity with the basic principles of physics.

For four minutes the student sat in silence, forehead creased in thought. The arbiter reminded him that time was running out, to which the student replied that he had several extremely relevant answers, but couldn’t make up his mind which to use. Finally, the student replied as follows:

"Well, you could take the barometer up to the roof of the skyscraper, drop it over the edge, and measure the time it takes to reach the ground. The height of the building can then be calculated from the formula H = 0.5gt². But you couldn’t use the barometer anymore!

"Or, if the sun is shining, you could measure the height of the barometer, then set it on the ground and measure the length of its shadow. Then, measure the length of the skyscraper’s shadow. Thereafter, it is a simple matter of proportional arithmetic to work out the height of the skyscraper.

"But if you wanted to be highly scientific about it, you could tie a short piece of string to the barometer and swing it like a pendulum, first at ground level and then on the roof of the skyscraper. The height is determined by the difference in the gravitational restoring force T = 2p(l/g)^1/2.

"Or, if the skyscraper has an outside emergency staircase, you could climb it while marking off the length of the barometer on the building. Then, count up the marks and multiply by the barometer’s length.

"If you merely wanted to be boring and orthodox about it, of course, you could use the barometer to measure the air pressure on the roof of the skyscraper and on the ground, and convert the difference in millibars into feet, thus giving the height of the building.

"But since we are constantly being exhorted to exercise independence of mind and apply scientific methods, undoubtedly the best way would be to knock on the door of the skyscraper’s janitor and say, ’If you would like a nice new barometer, I will give you this one, if you tell me the height of this skyscraper.’"

According to the e-mail transmitting the story, the student was Niels Bohr, the only Dane to ever win the Nobel Prize for physics. Can’t you just see him trying to explain all of this to a toolpusher who wants to check the height of a drilling derrick?

How would Sir John handle it? Just about every year, we read about some environmental group, such as Greenpeace, invading BP Amoco’s annual meeting to make some goofy demand or another, or to just be a nuisance. Well, the British CEO should be glad he doesn’t have to hold his meetings in Houston.

While outside protestors usually aren’t a problem, some stockholders can tend to get riled (as we say in Texas). Just ask the folks at R&B Falcon Corp., the Houston-based drilling contractor that recently experienced a grenade-wielding shareholder. When things didn’t go the way he wanted, a man produced a grenade, pulled the safety pin and made some threats. It wasn’t until after he was disarmed and subdued that it was determined that the grenade was a dud. Until then, the bravest, toughest man in Houston that day was likely company director Charles Donabedian, who R&B says, "was able to take control of the grenade from the stockholder."