Really...
Putting aside for a second how disrespectful it is to signoff of your last comment with "Yawn," do you really believe that field work and lab work are that divorced from each other? Of course I think about the three-dimensional strain tensor (and potentially the stress tensor, although I'm not personally that into thinking about constitutive relationships) while I am doing field work. Lab work and field work are generally an iterative process; my field work informs my lab work and then during my next field season, my lab work informs my field work. Besides, any time that I look at macroscopic fabrics, I think about how they reflect the kinematics(e.g., 3D finite strain tensor), not quantitatively at that very moment (I'm not Rainman), but I'm definitely thinking about it and ball parking the magnitudes (e.g., the second invariant) and the relative proportions of the principal axes lengths (eigenvalues) and that informs where I do my sampling, which in turn feeds back into my lab work. What a colossal waste of time and resources it would be for me to only think about "lab-things" in the lab and "field-things" in the field. How artificial and limiting that would be. I can't imagine doing science that way.
From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sunil Gupta
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 5:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Teaching Structural Geology
Steven and Scot, you are addressing a point I did not make. I (and several others in this thread) said that it is hard to find applications when looking at rocks, not that the theory isn't useful at all in any situation. Nothing you said contradicts that, you both provided few or no examples of needing stress tensors whilst actually examining the rocks. All or nearly all your examples are calculations carried out in an office. Yawn.
________________________________
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:11:54 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Teaching Structural Geology
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Well said Aaron. I agree completely.
Chuck
Dr. Charles H. Trupe
Associate Professor & Associate Department Chair
Department of Geology and Geography
Georgia Southern University
Statesboro, GA 30461
912-478-0337
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Yoshinobu Aaron <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Interesting that some who have posted have de-emphasized the more quantitative aspects of structure, yet, at the same time, funding agencies, STEM advocates (i.e., uni administrators & politicians), and industry pundits constantly tell us that we must be quantitative; that descriptive geology is "18th century geology"; that there is no more need of geologic mapping (wink wink). If one examines a current issue of JGR, EPSL, and many other respected journals, one could conclude that such conclusions might be true. But as Jerry Letvin said to Tim Leary in 1967, "bullshit!"
Yet, after discussing similar things with some of my geologic heroes and reading their books and papers, I have come round to the notion that we can still teach mapping, descriptive (structural) geology as well as vectors and tensors, stress and strain in a "normal" 4 credit hour course. And, I would argue that if we are asking our geology undergrads to take 2 years of calculus-based physics, etc., then we are not asking too much of the students to consider Cauchy's law. In fact, I think it demands that we demonstrate the relevancy of physics & math to geology. Lastly, (re)introducing these topics adds to the spiraling curriculum that helps to reinforce the concepts in the students' brain... regardless of whether they are going to become the next John Ramsay or the next John Doe. (Another entire thread, however, could address how much is retained by the students!)
yours with an afternoon cappuccino,
Aaron
_______________________________
Dr. Aaron S. Yoshinobu
Professor
Department of Geosciences
Texas Tech University
125 Science Building
Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
USA
fax: 806-742-0100
http://geosciences.ttu.edu/people/yoshinobu.php
On Apr 8, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Stenhouse, Paul wrote:
All,
Having never taught a structural geology class, my intention was to stay out of this discussion. However, I think Carl made an important point (albeit in a more colourful way than I would've chosen) that has been lost in the on-going discussion. Everybody on this mailing list is either a structural geologist or has a strong interest in structural geology. We all have our pet areas of interest and many of you will use quite advanced concepts and techniques on a daily basis. However, most people in an undergraduate structural geology course will not become structural geologists, they may become academics in other sub-disciplines, go into the petroleum or minerals industries or any number of other possible career paths. So the question is not whether specific concepts or techniques are useful to a structural geologist, but what is important in producing a well-rounded graduate geologist. I would certainly agree with many previous posts that looking at and understanding what the rocks are telling you is fundamental, so if at all possible I think everything should be linked back to an outcrop, hand specimen or thin section that the students have seen. I also think the priority should be on developing a conceptual understanding of what structures look like in the real world and the key processes involved in making them. If your students are all highly numerate then maybe a quantitative continuum mathematics approach is suitable. However, for the vast majority of students I have encountered (primarily in Australia and NZ.... Other parts of the world may be different), starting with this approach may drive people away from the subject when we actually want to draw them in. Talented students can always be extended with more difficult problems, however, my concern is for the 'average' geology student who may well become a reliable industry geologist in the future. I never come away from an exploration or mine site saying "that geo couldn't do advanced continuum mechanics to save his life', but I do come away from some sites pondering how a geo with an MSc and 15 year's experience still thinks a mineralised fault system is just a simple planar structure or doesn't recognise the project-scale fold that is affecting mineralisation? I'm not here to tell people with years of teaching experience how to do their jobs, I'd just like everybody to engage with their students on a level that they can understand and teach a curriculum that will help them regardless of their exact career path.
Regards,
Paul
Paul Stenhouse PhD, MAusIMM
Senior Consultant (Structural Geology)
<image002.jpg>
SRK Consulting (UK) Limited
5th Floor, Churchill House, 17 Churchill Way, Cardiff, CF10 2HH, Wales, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 2920 348 150; Fax: +44 (0) 2920 348 199
Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
www.srk.co.uk<http://www.srk.co.uk/>
SRK Consulting (UK) Limited ("SRK") is registered in England and Wales with Registered Number 01575403 and Registered Office at 21 Gold Tops, Newport, NP20 4PG, Wales, United Kingdom.
CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER STATEMENTS
This email transmission (including any attachments to it) is strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. This email is intended solely to be received by the person(s) or organisation(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, retaining, using, disseminating, distributing, copying or taking any actions in reliance upon any information or documents contained in it is strictly prohibited and will constitute a breach of confidentiality. If you have received this email in error, please reply to the sender immediately to inform us and delete it.
Any statements, views or opinions contained in this email are personal to the sender except where the sender expressly states these are attributable to SRK or any company in SRK's group.
Please note that internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium. Further, any material originated by SRK and transmitted to you via a third party should be verified by reference to material obtained directly from SRK. Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are virus-free at the point of departure, the recipient should check that they are virus-free upon receipt and we do not accept liability for any damage so caused.
From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of domquixote
Sent: 07 April 2015 20:34
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Teaching Structural Geology
My God !!!
This whole discussion makes me wonder if I am not from Mars and landed here in the dark ages... at least before Francis Bacon's time...
LAD Fernandes
(The Brazilian Nut)
Enviado por Samsung Mobile
-------- Mensagem original --------
De : "Krueger, Scot"
Data:04/07/2015 13:52 (GMT-03:00)
Para: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Assunto: Re: Teaching Structural Geology
It is always dangerous to assume that just because you don't use a technology that "nobody" uses that technology. Stress and strain are the fundamental processes that drive the deformation of rocks (i.e. structural geology). It touches so many aspects of the study that I would argue that an absence of grounding in the basic concepts would be a serious shortcoming.
I am a structural geologist in the oil and gas industry, and we deal with critical stress-strain problems on a daily basis. From my professional experience I would add the following key reasons to want to know how stress tensors work:
Wellbore stability during and after drilling
Avoiding drilling induced fractures and/or seismicity
Fracking of tight rocks to enhance permeability to fluids
Pore pressure prediction
Subsurface fluid migration in the overpressured conditions of most deep basins
Hydrocarbon column height prediction
Basic "pore pressure-stress-strain" relationships associated with the formation of faults and folds
Subseismic fault and fracture prediction
Salt tectonics
Mobile shale tectonics
And these are just off the top of my head. I could come up with many more routine structural geology tasks which critically depend on a firm grasp of stress-strain relationships if I spent a little time reviewing past projects. It is not a stretch to argue that the modern energy-intensive lifestyle we have established would not be possible without structural geologists and geological engineers with a firm grounding in stress-strain relationships. It touches every prospect we ever propose, every well we ever drill, and every reservoir we ever produce.
Obviously, I am a strong advocate of stress-strain relationships being part of the core curriculum in structural geology training. It is impossible to come to a process-driven understanding of deformed rocks without it. And, when paired with the more mining-related subdisciplines listed previously, I think a reasonable argument could be made that we could not explore the subsurface without it.
Scot Krueger
From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Steven Micklethwaite
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 5:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Teaching Structural Geology
Reasons I DO want to know the stress tensor of a rock:
Getting hot dry rock geothermal hydraulic fracturing to work.
Mine wall stability.
Hydrocarbon reservoir engineering.
CO2 storage.
Fault seal limitations.
Stoping.
Economics of ore shoot extraction.
Earthquake hazard assessment using dynamic or mechanical models.
Is this real world enough?
From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sunil Gupta
Sent: Saturday, 4 April 2015 8:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Teaching Structural Geology
Carl- ikr
"If only I knew the stress tensor for this rock!" exclaimed no geologist actually looking at a rock, ever.
-Sunny
________________________________
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 18:11:33 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Teaching Structural Geology
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
I suspect you're confusing my point about research versus introductory teaching. I would never consider suggesting what someone should research because it is impossible to predict in advance what research will pay big dividends (your laser example) and what will not (some example we've never heard of). My point was about how to best spend the limited and valuable time available as an instructor of an introductory level structural geology course.
Carl Little
Consulting Geologist
Toronto, ON, Canada
On 29 March 2015 at 12:37, Krabbendam, Maarten <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
You may have a point, but the laser was once intellectual masturbation,
Maarten Krabbendam
________________________________
From: Carl Little [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: 29 March 2015 10:00
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Teaching Structural Geology
Spending half a course on a topic which the students will struggle to find applications for in the real world is little more than intellectual masturbation, it seems to me.
Carl Little
Consulting Geologist
Toronto, ON, Canada
________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
--
Dr. Charles H. Trupe
Associate Professor & Associate Department Chair
Department of Geology and Geography
Georgia Southern University
Statesboro, GA 30461
912-478-0337
