1. Hard hats and mortarboards: The industry
and university working together
Robert R. Stewart,* Don C. Lawton,** Gary F. Margrave,** and Laurence R. Lines**
*Dept. of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
**Dept. of Geoscience, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
40 CSEG RECORDER January 2009
Continued on Page 41
Abstract
University and industry goals can complement each other.
Thus, there is considerable advantage to a university-
industry partnership, especially in applied geophysics. This
article discusses a consortium model for the collaboration
and provides an example – the CREWES Project at the
University of Calgary. The mandate of the CREWES Project is
to make better subsurface pictures to assist in resource
discovery and recovery, and environmental mitigation while
educating students and advancing geoscience. To make a
consortium work, there need to be natural advantages,
ongoing demand, and demonstrated productivity. By effec-
tive use of opportunities and advantages, consortia can
provide well educated personnel, economically useful
output, and scientific achievements.
Introduction
A broad societal goal is to have a prosperous economy
(providing interesting and profitable employment) that
supports healthy social circumstances. Economies and soci-
eties function by supplying services and goods to their popu-
laces. Education is naturally required to train individuals to
participate in these social and economic structures. Increased
educational attainment is also socially desirable because it is
associated with lower rates of unemployment, higher
incomes (and higher tax revenues), better health outcomes,
lower social welfare spending, and reduced likelihood of
following-generation poverty (CalFASA, 2004). For example,
the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and
Geophysicists of Alberta Value of Professional Services
Survey (APEGGA, 2007) indicates that, on average, each
university degree adds several percent to total income (and,
we trust, associated value to the workplace).
The university’s mandate is to create, conserve, and commu-
nicate knowledge. On the other hand, industries arise to
develop and deliver products and services – to use knowl-
edge for the direct benefit of society. Some aspects of univer-
sity characteristics versus those of the industry, especially for
the geosciences, are shown in Figure 1.
So, there are different strengths and weakness of the two
sectors and sometimes, different timescales. However, both
are dedicated to improving the state of the social enterprise.
Thus, complementing collaborations between the two can be
very useful. The university has certain needs: students,
funding, staff, data, outside advice, equipment, plus chal-
lenges and problems to investigate. The industry can help in
supplying these. Similarly, the university can provide well
educated graduates as well as contribute ideas, research
results, and prototypes toward solving specific problems
(Figure 2). Creation or invention can be quite distinct from
commercialization (Schrage, 2004). Often, different structures
and attitudes are required for either to be successful. Major
oil companies divested themselves of much of their research
capability (Cope, 2001) through the 1990s. Consequently,
considerable research and innovation is expected to come
from the service industry and universities.
University-industry relationships
The industry and the university can be associated in a
number of ways. These relationships might range from the
informal, small, and short-term to the contractual, broad, and
multi-year as follows:
Figure 1. Characteristics of the university versus industry in the geosciences. Figure 2. Innovation and resource recovery in the industry require
experts, novices, and appropriate technology and structures as can be
contributed by the university.

2. January 2009 CSEG RECORDER 41
• Guest lectures, continuing education courses
• Consultancies, spin-off companies
• Sabbaticals (both ways)
• Adjunct professorships
• Senate, Advisory Boards
• Informal joint projects
• Donations
• Research contracts
• Consortia
All of these arrangements can provide benefit to both parties. In
this paper though, we will discuss mainly the consortium struc-
ture. We can define, “consortium” as:
• A cooperative arrangement among groups
(www.thefreedictionary.com)
• An association or combination of institutions or businesses
for the purpose of engaging in a joint venture
• An agreement, combination, or group formed to undertake
an enterprise beyond the resources of any one member
(www.m-w.com/dictionary)
The university-industry consortium structure is similarly based
on an understanding or agreement among participants and will
likely involve a formal contract. However, the consortium has
some advantages over a specific contract between researchers
and a single company. For example, the consortium’s work can
potentially be distributed to a larger audience with the possi-
bility of greater impact. In addition, the sponsoring companies’
fees can be smaller and pooled which lowers risk. Also, unto-
ward changes in a single company's fortunes or personnel are
less likely to be fatal for the whole consortium. Furthermore,
there can be more and varied opportunities for interaction and
output. On the other hand, research results from the consortium
will be provided to all of its sponsors (and often eventually made
public), so there may be less competitive advantage accruing to
a particular company. And communications with a group of
sponsors may be more complex than with a single company.
Making the consortium work is assisted by a number of factors.
These can include having certain natural advantages in location,
personnel, or local industries. There must be faculty leadership,
significant industry interest, and university or government
support. The consortium’s research may often involve new, but
unproven high-potential technology. Innovation in the energy
industry is associated with some factors that are not under its
control – advancements in other fields as well as resource
demand (Figure 3). So, researchers must stay alert to break-
throughs elsewhere, in addition to being somewhat lucky with
the concurrent price of hydrocarbons. Ultimately, the consortium
must deliver results including significant ideas, reports, perhaps
software and data, and a steady supply of enthusiastic and
capable graduates. Other aspects of a program which can
encourage success are:
• A critical mass of researchers (that is, a team of full-time
professors, staff scientists, and visitors).
• Strong undergraduate and graduate program and students
– B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D.
• Up-to-date equipment and software.
• Long-term administration, hardware, and software
support staff.
• Requisite office, lecture, and lab space.
• Track records of excellence in research and ongoing
development of highly qualified personnel (HQP).
• Regular contact with sponsors and consistent deliverables.
• Supply of industry data, projects, internships.
• Intense involvement in professional societies.
• Visibility (media, publications, meetings, courses).
The geophysics community
As mentioned above, the chances of achieving a
successful partnership will be increased if certain
factors are present. Clearly, having the university and
industry in close proximity for meetings and courses,
with similar laws and language, and informal sharing
of expertise is of considerable benefit. In the specific
CREWES (Consortium for Research in Elastic Wave
Exploration Seismology) case, the city of Calgary
provides an excellent home for a geophysics consor-
tium because of the strength, breadth and capabilities
of its geophysics community. The Canadian Society of
Exploration Geophysicists (CSEG) and Canadian
Society of Petroleum Geologists (CSPG) are headquar-
tered in the city. APEGGA has a local office and the
Tulsa-based Society of Exploration Geophysicists
(SEG) has had four Presidents from Calgary (Larson,
2005). There are hundreds of energy companies,
numerous seismic contractors, consultants and service
companies located in the city. Thus, Calgary is a
vibrant centre of geophysics and one of the top
Article Cont’d
Hard hats and mortarboards…
Continued from Page 40
Continued on Page 42
Figure 3. Innovation in the resource sector is associated with a financial demand pull, and an
outside technology push, in a culture that encourages inventiveness and application.

3. 42 CSEG RECORDER January 2009
geoscience cities in the world, with hundreds of professional
geophysicists.
Being close to an industry centre provides a natural job market
for undergraduate and graduate students as well as staff. The
ongoing interplay of education and employment greatly
supports the continuity required by the consortium. Students are
a critical link between the university and industry – it may be
that newly graduated students are the best form of “technology
transfer”. Having a strong university is deeply beneficial to a city
as it attracts, educates, and can help keep expertise in its prox-
imity as well as provide numerous other economic multipliers.
There is also a reverse mechanism that transfers people and
expertise from the industry to the university consortium. A flour-
ishing consortium can provide an attractive second career for
industrial scientists who, feeling they have made their mark in
industry, are looking for a chance to use their substantial skill
and knowledge in other ways. After a nominal retirement from
industry, many talented scientists have joined CREWES and
derived satisfaction from involvement in more fundamental
research and for the opportunity of mentoring of the next gener-
ation of geoscientists. This mechanism benefits the broader
geophysical community by bringing those with the accumulated
wisdom into direct contact with those in training.
The CREWES consortium
The mandate of the CREWES Project is to conduct advanced
research and education in geophysical exploration in partnership
with the resource industry. The Project is specifically committed
to developing seismic methods to understand, image, and
monitor the subsurface and its fluids. While the Project main-
tains a traditional structure of professors and their individual
graduate students, stable consortium revenue enables the critical
addition of support staff in administration, research, and tech-
nical roles (Figure 4).
The Project is established inside the university with funding
largely from outside of it (Figure 5). With CREWES, the majority
of the funding is from industrial sponsors (some 30 companies
engaged in petroleum exploration, including national oil compa-
nies, super-majors, independents, seismic contractors, and soft-
ware companies) who pay an annual sponsorship fee. This fee is
renewable annually. While this is short-term for the University
and provides annual stress, it makes a lower risk investment for
the industry and encourages timely production. CREWES also
receives significant funding from the federal government, under a
Collaborative Research and Development (CRD) grant from the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). The
grant provides monies that match a portion of those contributed
by the industry. We believe that this matching protocol is wise on
the government’s part as it lets the technologies’ actual users (or
market) regularly indicate if the research is valuable. It is note-
worthy that some consortia in other countries, unfortunately, do
not receive such government matching support.
The full CREWES group (Figure 6) consists of some 50 individ-
uals including six geophysics professors in the Department of
Geoscience, and a professor in the Department of Mathematics
and Statistics, at the University of Calgary, their associated grad-
uate students (approximately 35), and twelve staff members. The
group meets once a week to receive a technical presentation from
its ranks and/or visitors. Students help realize CREWES goals as
well as undertake their graduate M.Sc. and Ph.D. programs. The
Project and university provide many opportunities for students
including interesting classes and courses; research involvement
with excellent support staff, facilities, and data; and participation
in meetings and conferences via presentation and publications.
Reciprocally, the Project expects CREWES students to undertake
conscientious research in geophysical problems, achieve creative
and useful results, and strive for professional development and
respectful deportment.
The Project’s personnel
are heavily involved in
our professional organi-
zations (CSEG, SEG,
APEGGA, Australian
SEG, EAGE (European
Association of Engineers
and Geoscientists) and
SIAM (Society of
Industrial and Applied
Mathematics). This is
essential for student and
staff development, nurturing of our science and profession, and
awareness of geophysical advancements.
A key aspect in the forging of a partnership between industry and
the university is the delivery of results. Annually, CREWES spon-
sors receive research reports, software, data, and an invitation to
the Sponsors Meeting (typically attended by more than 60
geophysicists from around the world). The meeting gives repre-
sentatives from sponsoring companies the chance to attend
presentations describing recent research results, update their
technical skills at courses taught by faculty, interact with senior
researchers, and meet the next generation of geophysicists
(CREWES has graduated some 100 Ph.D.’s and M.Sc.’s, most of
Article Cont’d
Hard hats and mortarboards…
Continued from Page 41
Continued on Page 43
Figure 5. Financial support comes to the university consortia from a number of
sources.
Figure 4. The structure of the the CREWES Project. There is the traditional faculty and graduate student component as well as perma-
nent staff support.

4. January 2009 CSEG RECORDER 43
whom were subsequently employed by
sponsoring companies). A list of contribu-
tions from CREWES to its sponsors (the
“deliverables”) is given in Appendix I.
CREWES has been involved in interna-
tional development and outreach proj-
ects (Figure 7). Examples include
technology transfers to ONGC (The
Indian national oil company), Petrobras,
and Aramco and some associated univer-
sities. CREWES faculty led the effort to
set up Thailand’s first graduate school in
geophysics. Currently, CREWES non-
confidential research results (data, soft-
ware, reports and teaching materials) are
distributed publicly via the SEG and
through the Project website
(www.crewes.org).
More specifically, CREWES is involved in under-
standing the geology and petrophysics of resource
targets while developing characterization, recovery, and
monitoring methods associated with the resources
(Figure 8).
In further detail, the technical goals of the Project are to:
• Provide better structural images of the subsurface.
• Determine lithologic information (rock type).
• Describe rock properties (porosity, fractures,
permeability).
• Estimate fluid content.
• Monitor reservoir changes.
• Help find & recover underground resources.
• Design & test geophysical instruments.
• Enhance the acquisition of field and lab data.
• Investigate the mathematics of wave propagation
& imaging.
• Advance computer programming, modeling and data
processing methods.
• Undertake wellbore (logs & VSP) geophysics.
• Interpret geophysical data & synthesize case
histories.
Progress Assessment
It is important to review the accomplishments of any ongoing
program. We attempt to do this in CREWES via a number of
indicators. One simple indicator is sponsorship renewal itself.
However, we find that this may be more tied to the state of the
industry (merger and acquisition activity and the price of
commodities) than our productivity. So, we have developed
another indicator composed of awards, publications, surveys,
data, student graduations, and software released. This output
Article Cont’d
Continued on Page 44
Hard hats and mortarboards…
Continued from Page 42
Figure 6. The CREWES group consists of graduate students, professors, and staff.
Figure 7. CREWES conducts research enquiries primarily directed toward the energy industry.
A great part of the CREWES effort entails education and training as well as applications in the
industrial geophysics community.
Figure 8. The energy and resource communities have a number of targets, recovery
processes, and methods to assess the resource.

5. 44 CSEG RECORDER January 2009
number attempts to capture a sense of the Project’s productivity
and impact. We’ve plotted this indicator versus time in Figure 9.
The Project’s personnel numbers and funding have had an
overall increase over the years and so has output. But, we might
ask, “how has output per person or per dollar fared?” Is bigger,
better? We find that the output per dollar of support and per
person has been fairly constant (Figure 10).
So, output/person has been largely independent of the Project’s
total number of personnel. Thus, bigger is not better on a per
person basis; but, neither is smaller. However, total output has
increased substantially. So, in general, it’s likely better to have a
larger project with greater output which could provide a better
chance of some research results having a major impact.
We can also try to use outside statistics to assess the impact of
CREWES. The number of citations by other authors is one indi-
cator of impact. Figure 11 shows a citation index from one data-
base and suggests that CREWES’ impact is increasing and of
similar value to other consortia.
Challenges
There are certainly some challenges presented by the creation of
a consortium. Naturally, the financial supporters must receive
some clear benefit from their funding. This requires considerable
time, on the part of university faculty and staff, to organize and
deliver results. Part of the specific industry benefit comes from
having access to information that is not immediately available
otherwise. This precipitates confidentiality requirements.
CREWES research documents remain restricted to sponsors for a
period (two years). This does not include theses, abstracts,
journal papers and their derivative material (however, the
Project does strive to provide abstracts to the sponsorship first,
then release them to the public). On the industry’s part, its
support will often be maximized through greater involvement of
its personnel (e.g., in joint projects, internships, technology tests).
This will take some time and resource commitment from the
company as well as its representatives and CREWES personnel.
A consortium necessarily operates as a team. Some personnel
may be less inclined to work closely with others, so expectations
need to be presented clearly and managed.
Some critics of industry-university relationships have suggested
that the university could be compromised in its objective pursuit
of knowledge as a result of industry contact. Or that the univer-
sity could be overly influenced by sponsorship demands. We can
say that this has not been our experience in the last 20 years. The
sponsorship members are generally good scientists in their own
right, quite deferential to university goals and constraints, and
are seeking inspired results somewhat different from their own
internal work or that of service companies. Moreover, the
research environment in applied geoscience at the University of
Calgary has been very positively impacted by the existence of
CREWES and the resultant influx of industry support.
Conclusions
The industry and university have much to gain by working
collaboratively. Our field of geophysics, the education of
students, and the application of technology to pressing problems
can all be improved by a university-industry partnership. The
CREWES Project aspires to make better pictures of the subsur-
face via advanced seismic methods. Success in this undertaking
is enhanced by the natural advantages of a local industry,
numerous associated professionals, and a dedicated staff and
Article Cont’d
Continued on Page 45
Figure 9. CREWES output since inception has generally risen (with some
oscillations).
Figure 10. Productivity over time. The normalized output of CREWES has been
fairly consistent. Asterisks in the lower plot indicate Director Sabbatical Leave
periods.
Figure 11. An indication of impact can be gleaned from referencing in refereed jour-
nals. Comparative statistics are provided for leading European and American
consortia.
Hard hats and mortarboards…
Continued from Page 43

6. January 2009 CSEG RECORDER 45
faculty. Using these advantages can give rise to a consistently
productive group in applied geophysics. R
References and Reading
APEGGA, 2007, http://www.apegga.org/pdf/SalarySurvey/VPS2007.pdf
Anderson, H., 2004, Why big companies can’t invent: Technology Review, 107, 4, 56-59.
CalFASA, 2004, Post-secondary education and the government’s return on investment:
CalFASA (Calgary Faculty and Student Alliance): Academic Views, 36, 1.
Durham, L.S., 2004, Wall Street has its own rules and, oil stocks have their own person-
ality: AAPG Explorer, 25, 10, 24-26.
Cope, G., 2001, How did M&A’s impact R&D in geophysics?: CSEG RECORDER, 3, 42-46.
ESS, 2002, Earth sciences sector – Business Plan 2002/2005: Natural Resources Canada.
Larson, R., 2005, CSEG history – a random “on-line” browse: CSEG RECORDER, Feb., 28-33.
Pike, W., 2004, Ed., Service sector committed to stable investment, industry’s ‘pure’ R &
D falls short: Research & Development, E&P: Hart Energy Publishing.
Selim, J., 2004, Lord’s advice: Let your students go (Interview with Lord Robert May):
Discover, 25, 11, 23-24.
Schrage, M., 2004, Much ado about invention: Technology Review, 107, 4, 17.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank NSERC (Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada) and all CREWES spon-
sors. We also express our deep appreciation to the many students
and staff of the CREWES Project who have taught us so much.
Appendix I – Deliverables
Each sponsor of the CREWES Project:
i) has immediate access to the CREWES Research Collection (in 2008 consisting of
876 research reports and 89 student graduate theses from the last 20 years), soft-
ware, and CREWES News through the web site (www.crewes.org).
ii) receives the yearly, bound Research Report on CREWES research activities
(approximately 70 chapters and 900 pages) and bi-monthly CREWES Newsletter;
iii) receives regular releases of software developed by the Project;
iv) has access to detailed seismic field surveys acquired by the Project including a 3C-
3D survey and a broad-band set of 3-C lines from the Blackfoot field near
Strathmore, Alberta, a high-resolution 3-C survey, a vertical hydrophone cable
line, and a 3C-3D near-surface survey.
v) has access to physical modelling data (acoustic and elastic);
vi) is invited to continuing education courses on areas of recent technical
development;
vii) is invited to the annual Sponsors Meeting where CREWES-generated research
results are presented;
viii) receives graduate-student theses, presentation abstracts, and publicationreprints;
ix) receives copies of lecture notes and CREWES-authored SEG publications as well
as PowerPointpresentations;
x) has the opportunity to develop joint projects of mutual interest; and
xi) has a chance to become acquainted with graduate students as potential future
employees.
Article Cont’d
Hard hats and mortarboards…
Continued from Page 44
Robert R. Stewart graduated from the University of Toronto with a B.Sc. in physics and mathematics and completed a Ph.D.
in geophysics at MIT. He has been employed with the Chevron Oil Field Research Company in La Habra, California; Arco
Exploration and Production Research Centre in Dallas, Texas; Chevron Geosciences Co., and Veritas Software Ltd., Calgary.
Rob was a professor of geophysics at the University of Calgary and held the Chair in Exploration Geophysics from 1987-
1997. In August, 2008, he joined the University of Houston as a professor of geophysics, Cullen Chair, and Director of the
Allied Geophysical Lab.
Don Lawton is a Professor of Geophysics and Chair in Exploration Geophysics in the Department of
Geoscience at the University of Calgary. He previously served as Head of the Department from 1997 to
2002. His research interests include acquisition, processing and interpretation of multicomponent seismic data, seismic
anisotropy, integrated geophysical and geological studies in complex geological settings, and geological storage of CO2. He
is an Associate Director of the Consortium for Research in Elastic Wave Exploration Seismology (CREWES). He is a past
Editor of the Canadian Journal of Exploration Geophysics, and was a recipient of a Meritorious Service Award from the
Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists (CSEG) in 1996 and the CSEG Medal in 2000. He is a member of SEG, AAPG,
EAGE, CSEG, CSPG, ASEG, and APEGGA.
Gary F. Margrave is Professor of Geophysics, and Adjunct Professor of Mathematics, in the Department of Geology and
Geophysics at the University of Calgary. He also serves as Associate Director of CREWES (Consortium for Research in Elastic
Wave Exploration Seismology) and co-directs POTSI (Pseudodifferential Operator Theory in Seismic Imaging) at the
University of Calgary. He received his Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Alberta in 1981 and his M.Sc. in Physics
from the University of Utah in 1977. From 1980 until 1995 Margrave held a number of geophysical positions within Chevron
Corporation. His research interests include geophysical inversion, seismic imaging, wave propagation, harmonic analysis,
time-frequency analysis, and nonstationary filtering. He is a member of the SEG, CSEG, AMS, AGU, and APPEGA.
Laurence “Larry” Lines is the President of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG). Larry
received B.Sc. and M.Sc. geophysics degrees from the University of Alberta (1971, 1973) and a Ph.D. in geophysics from the
University of British Columbia (1976). His industrial career included 17 years with Amoco in Calgary and Tulsa (1976-1993).
Following a career in industry, Dr. Lines held the NSERC/Petro-Canada Chair in Applied Seismology at Memorial
University of Newfoundland (1993-1997) and the Chair in Exploration Geophysics at the University of Calgary (1997-2002).
From 2002-2007, he served as the Head, Department of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Calgary. In professional
service, Larry has served the SEG as Geophysics Editor (1977-99), Distinguished Lecturer, Geophysics Associate Editor,
Translations Editor, Publications Chairman, and as a member of The Leading Edge Editorial Board. He served the CSEG as
Editor and Associate Editor. Larry and co-authors have won the SEG’s Best Paper in Geophysics Award twice (1988, 1995) and have twice won
Honorable Mention for Best Paper (1986,1998). Larry is an Honorary Member of SEG, CSEG, and the Geophysical Society of Tulsa. Additionally,
he is a member of APEGGA, CGU, EAGE, and AAPG. Larry is married with two children, and enjoys hobbies of choir, softball, and hiking with
his Alaskan malamute.