Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

Cost-cutting isn't a strategy......

  • but when that is all you know how to do, thats what you do. The Reuters thing is the tip of the iceberg. Follow the money. And the arrogance.
by
| 7665 views | |
Post ID: @OP+12a5exkn

30 replies (most recent on top)

The right kind cost-cutting is in fact a strategy. We are now living in a world where the direction is reducing our carbon footprint. Chevron and all other O&G producing companies will have to shrink in size and work even leaner to continue to be profitable. It’s not a question of eliminating O&G altogether. The world will always need what oil and gas. As electric automobiles and innovations with reduced carbon footprints replace arcane modes of yesterday, the need for gasoline and other petroleum derivatives will be less. Chevron and all other oil companies see this inevitable trend coming and need to conform or cease to exist. Cost-cutting and shrinking is in our near term and long term future. Accept it.

by
|
Post ID: @1kese+12a5exkn

We have so many initiatives we have no idea what is the path. Feels like a new bright idea from the top every 6 months. Getafterit! The latest one.

by
|
Post ID: @1ksxy+12a5exkn

@bhqm, absolutely, it's either them or the Russians - LMAO!

by
|
Post ID: @cyiw+12a5exkn

Also, the corporate comms group has 5 folks who make sure votes are properly assigned. here, on glassdoor dot com, social medai, etc... now watch this post get downvoted into oblivion.

by
|
Post ID: @bhqm+12a5exkn

You can keep the Nobel, I'll take a few thousand shares of Noble. Shale is crashing, dollars are not so subtly moving offshore.

by
|
Post ID: @bgvr+12a5exkn

You are absolutely correct. Accurate /inaccurate are not disjunctive from the up/down votes. They are pretty much directly proportional. You get the Nobel!

by
|
Post ID: @9vid+12a5exkn

Well you won’t get a Nobel for that comment - accurate / inaccurate are not disjunctive from the vote.

by
|
Post ID: @9pqt+12a5exkn

Just an observation, but the posts with the most delta red "down vote" responses are the least threatening and mostly inaccurate. Must be why people vote them down.

by
|
Post ID: @9ths+12a5exkn

Just an observation, the posts with the most delta red responses are the most threatening and accurate.

by
|
Post ID: @9str+12a5exkn

We can all speculate about the future, but nobody knows nothing. There is no imperative to cut staff, only to better align the organization to the business.

by
|
Post ID: @9wpm+12a5exkn

Well, with 4000+ heads cut in 2020, that should start showing a return in 3 years.

by
|
Post ID: @8ewg+12a5exkn

MCPs all go to Houston with FEs, PEs, ES, etc. limited Field and Project Support go to the Field Office.

by
|
Post ID: @5kma+12a5exkn

What about the deepwater MCPs in GOM, like anchor or Ballymore? Will be consolidated with Covington as well?

by
|
Post ID: @5ihp+12a5exkn

It is, and it’s one the market loves. Case in point GOM. You’re going to see a consolidation in Houston, and a return to the Field Office Concept, with a Field Office at either the Galliano Airbase or the Houma Terrebonne Airport. Both of which have runway capability to handle corporate Jet Aircraft, a short hop from Houston. Technology is the main driver, the cost savings will be enormous.

by
|
Post ID: @4dqh+12a5exkn

I like the comment as to why the TCO personnel especially the disasterours FGP project team is not being cut. When the module engineering manager for FGP negotiated the module contract with the Koreans, there was not a single technical comment or technical deviation to the specs in the signed contract. Koreans hit chevron with a billion dollars of change orders before they even started cutting steel. No accountability whatsoever and these guys are still out in Korea living it up

by
|
Post ID: @4qwl+12a5exkn

@1ktj That was tried in SJVBU. The result was chaos. Many of the remaining petrotechs fled the company due to the insane workload and unrealistic new operating structure, the BU was forced to bring in costly expats to fill the gaps, and during this the giant spill/leak somehow got away from them.

by
|
Post ID: @1fcb+12a5exkn

Flattened hierarchies and organizational accountability is crucial for Chevron to adopt and will be an enormous step in the right direction. This reorganization is needed badly. I hope they get rid of all the bad actors and non producers this time. The PC culture must also be toned down a great deal, if not eliminated.

by
|
Post ID: @1dlq+12a5exkn

Uhhh... we don’t have an entire non-OpCo dedicated to AI. This is not Anadarko. The amount Chevron is investing in AI is practically nothing compared to other digital things.

by
|
Post ID: @1brm+12a5exkn
  • jxz makes some good points. Flattened hierarchies and organizational accountability may be new to CVX but they are not new to the industry and certainly not new to investors. As for agility, that is beyond our reach if the reality of bureaucratic processes accurately described by -oxb continue. As for strategy referenced by the OP, that remains in question. If you carefully analyze all of the statements made by leadership, in earnings calls, press releases, and other public forums, one wonders if profitability will ever be obtained in the Permian shale play. If we we have an “enviable land position, an entire non-opco devoted to AI, and the play is our short-cycle savior, how is it possible we have no profit to show and the shale profit can keeps getting kicked down the quarterly trail. It sounds a bit like Gorgon where a positive return on investment will never be achieved. And now Tengiz is also overspent by an amount that may equal the entire enterprise’s annual earnings at year end. Our obsession with bureaucratic decision-making processes and middle management empire-building continue to negate any effort to become agile. We talk about the value chain but seem to have lost an understanding of where the value zones are.
by
|
Post ID: @1pwc+12a5exkn

Heck, about 90% of all Chevron employees are expendable. Fire only half of them and the company will run in spite of the reduced headcount.

by
|
Post ID: @1ktj+12a5exkn

Observer: Thanks for the serious answer. Leaves more questions than supplies answers, but I guess a layoff site is not the place to expect to learn about business directions. As always, the devil is in the details. I guess we will all know soon enough. For now I for one plan to enjoy thanksgiving and ignore all the sh– about to hit the fan. God bless.

by
|
Post ID: @yyt+12a5exkn

Hey we don’t need war and peace on here. Obviously you were not taught précis writing skills.

by
|
Post ID: @rwj+12a5exkn

The organization currently operates within a structure that basically has four levels of management. Corporate Headquarters, Upsteam, CNAEP and then the BU (an example for the NA business units). And if you are familiar with the company you understand that within upstream and cnaep are groups & companies that provide a variety of resources and services to the business units to help them perform various tasks and projects. These resource groups are currently ancillary or outside of the BTUs and therefore also have their own hierarchy and org structure to facilitate function. Leadership is going to flatten the structure of the organization. By eliminating levels of org structure & corresponding managerial, support and administrative roles in the hierarchy; the org will be leaner and more agile. The resource & service providers will likely be placed within The BUs they serve for those that need them. As a result a number of positions throughout the spectrum of organizational hierarchy will be eliminated. The leaders & managers at the BU level will be held accountable for the support and services which they need & which will now be under their control. Supervisory levels of the organization which formally served to manage broad geographical locations will be eliminated. The upstream business will be divided into functional groups based upon the type of work they do and the resources they produce. By separating upstream to LNG, Deepwater and Shale then empowering the leaders of those broad groups to manage their business, their own org workforce, and Hold them accountable for profitability; upstream should be significantly streamlined. Each sector will operate more accountably and their cost structure, revenue generation and profitability becomes readily discernible and directly assigned to those leaders. it’s a cleaner business model and provides greater transparency of the company’s financial performance. Each business sector has to make it on their own abilities. they no longer get to blend their performance under the umbrella of upstream. it’s about accountability and profitability; the corporation is demanding Stronger financial performance and they feel this new structure will increase both transparency and clarity.

by
|
Post ID: @jxz+12a5exkn
  • tty: if the goal is to turn Chevron into a small to midsize oil company, then ok a big liquidation is in order;-)
by
|
Post ID: @hkd+12a5exkn

CSOC, RUMS, Risk Assessments, Chip Dip, phase gates, Pathways, CAT tool, Teams and all the other stuff we have to do is getting in our way. We spend more time justifying the answer then making the answer. We have to do his so that the PM understand because they have zero technical knowledge.

Follow the process!!!!!!! Follow the process it will get you to he correct answers, no need for knowledge around here just processes. If we don’t have a process for that we will get someone to write a process then we can add it to our ever growing collection of documents that no one can find anything in.

by
|
Post ID: @oxb+12a5exkn

There is an entire small to midsize oil company in Chevron to be realized by cost cutting alone. Capital projects quality could save at $5 billion per year. It is the perfect strategy for our bloat and I applaud it. Our organization is getting in our way, so let’s simplify it.

by
|
Post ID: @ttj+12a5exkn

@ -opy

Who do you think is running the project in Tengiz?

by
|
Post ID: @kls+12a5exkn

But but but we're getting rid of paper cups and plastic cutlery, doesn't that project acount for something??

by
|
Post ID: @eav+12a5exkn

Hard to understand what the strategy is. Package the corporation into smaller, more digestible, chunks for sale to support executive pay and the dividend payments? Ok, then let’s start with offloading shale, which still has made no money. The problem with liquidating parts of the ship, is eventually it sinks. Agreed cost-cutting and liquidation are not long-term strategies, but rather fingers in the dike.

by
|
Post ID: @jun+12a5exkn

Why only cut people in TPS(PRC, ETC, etc) not in Tengiz where has the most cost overrun?

by
|
Post ID: @opy+12a5exkn

Post a reply

: