Actually, more credible sources than Homer Simpson are concerned about the future supply of energy professionals, regardless of their gender. I do not have statistics for actual working professionals in the industry, but as I am currently president of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), I do have information on professional association members; this should provide a good proxy for industry trends. A graph of AAPG membership versus age illustrates the predicament facing the entire industry. In 1977, just as the energy industry was improving, the largest group of AAPG members was in their mid-40s to mid-50s. Only 10 years later, that group had almost disappeared from active AAPG membership.

They either retired, or finished their working careers as Wal-Mart greeters. If we fast-forward to 2006, again most AAPG members are in their early to mid-50s. Demographics for the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) are similar. Industry conditions are much better today than in 1987, but many professionals may retire anyway, because this time they can, financially. This potential event has been dubbed “The Big Crew Change.”

So what is the big problem here? You know that as fast as they can “text,” prospective students are gravitating (again) to geoscience and engineering majors that will garner high salaries. Student memberships in professional associations are at all-time highs. Ultimately, the laws of supply and demand will solve the impending manpower shortage. Higher salaries will attract more professionals, just like in the last industry boom of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Milton Friedman would be proud of us. Milton Bradley may also be proud of us, because some graduating students may be better equipped to play board games than to find and produce energy.

Eventually the law of supply and demand will prevail. But just like when the industry tries to explain high gasoline prices after devastating hurricanes, the short-term adjustment period will be challenging.

One trend emerging from conversations with AAPG’s academic members is an increasing administrative emphasis on education efficiency. The idea looks good on paper, but it does seem a bit of an oxymoron. They might as well say, “Hurry up and have fun.” High-quality geoscience education, especially those skills desired by industry, is notoriously inefficient from an academic-business viewpoint. A quality program requires off-campus field work for about 6 weeks, relatively small lab courses, and a variety of professors who can teach a wide range of geoscience courses. It is much more efficient to teach large survey classes with high “butts in seats”-to-instructor ratios and forego the fieldwork. Thus, many small to mid-sized geoscience departments are being squeezed, and the quality of graduating students is suffering. Some students are simply not required to have a field-based education to graduate. Nor do they have access to the breadth of courses necessary to understand all the potential production models they will evaluate as professionals.

Also, research funding in basic geosciences from U.S. government sources, such as the Department of Energy, has declined in recent years. With increased emphasis on climate and environment in science, the geoscience principles needed by the industry are de-emphasized. DOE support for university research programs was tossed in the basket of corporate welfare for the energy industry.

How will industry deal with these near-term challenges? The larger companies have increased financial support of selected geoscience departments to keep their farm teams stocked with prospective talent. However, many smaller departments may not realize increased private-sector support.

Unlike those of the mid-1980s, today’s 50-somethings can choose to retire early. The high-priced commodity cycle has a trickle-down effect on industry professionals. Everything – from rising stock prices, to higher royalties, to larger bonuses, to severance packages – has caused senior level employees to ask, “Why am I still working?” Hopefully some will answer, “To train the next generation, so my grandchildren will have heat, light, and fuel.”

Professional associations such as AAPG can help ease the transition to the next generation of energy professionals, suited as they are to providing a bridge between academia and industry. For example, AAPG is planning a broad consortium of companies to fund university research. AAPG will administer the program and it could at least partially replace the funding cuts by the DOE. Companies could contribute to the program in the belief that a “rising tide lifts all boats.” In return, they would get a larger list of qualified candidates. AAPG is also attempting to capture some of the brain drain from departing senior-level geoscientists.

The energy employment market may be efficient over the long term. But its short-term inefficiencies create opportunity for some, and losses for others. Employers who only hire the numbing masses that end up entering the business for big paychecks will be stuck with employees who simply go through the motions. Employers who can attract and retain high-quality professionals will be the winners.

Lee T. Billingsley, vice president of exploration for San Antonio-based Abraxas Petroleum, recently completed his term as President of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.