Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

Exploration getting lapped by competition

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/totalenergies-makes-large-hydrocarbon-discovery-off-namibia-sources-2022-02-24/

Another West Africa wildcat, another commercial discovery - this time by Total. Seriously, what the **** is exploration doing other than bragging about Guyana on LI and drilling dry ho-e after dry ho-e in Brazil?

I'm not a geologist but it's still very clear to me why we are failing: we laid off all the staff who actually did the technical work and kept all the powerpoint mo--ns and bootlickers. Not to mention EM seems to love hiring geos straight out of college (presumably because they can pay them less) while our competitors like Total and Shell recruit PhD's who are at least somewhat experienced in applied geology/geophysics.

I've said it in other threads but it's embarrassing that we're hanging our hat on Stabroek and mailing the rest in. Historically we have been probably the most successful exploration company in the world and it sucks to see lesser outfits like Shell and Total catching up to us.

by
| 1462 views | | 6 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1ftfYPlz

6 replies (most recent on top)

Sorry but normal attrition is not going to reduce your overhead in exploration. Still way too many geos for planned projects going forward and nothing in the pipeline. What will be needed are more prod and dev geos to work the disc undeveloped and inc Permian and Guyana and now PNG activities. Unfortunately those skill sets were heavily targeted in 2020 layoffs. Hope you basin modelers like geosteering wells!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2ptb+1ftfYPlz

In 2014, EMEC had nearly a billion of overhead with over 700 geoscientists, and a drilling and seismic budget of only $500 million. Over 70 geoscientists per net exploration well drilled. Way too inefficient and way too unfocussed. A more focussed approach of 10 net wells per year (only 30 geoscientists per well, still room for improvement) is way better. We need less overhead and more data (seismic) in a few good basins. As XOM sells marginal fields (N. Sea, Chad, Nigeria JV, Germany, North Sea, eventually Gippsland and Malaysia), XOM will need fewer exploration geoscientists and fewer Development and production geoscientists, but normal attrition will reduce this overhead.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2vfh+1ftfYPlz

EM took the axe to exploration in 2020. However good or bad you think it was, it's gone now and it's not coming back without a lot of time and investment I doubt the corp would seriously make at this point.

I can only assume DW and pals think we've found all the resource we'll need going forward. Maybe they just plan to buy DU fields at a high price and try to scrape by on narrow margins.

Or maybe they think the BTC can be an exploration company too. If that's so I have some bad news...

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1hlu+1ftfYPlz

I thought we are digging holes to hide the carbon IN, not pull it OUT.
Isn't that the new thing for us?
Did DW make a booboo saying that to Congress?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rtz+1ftfYPlz

Historically we have not been the most successful exploration company-look around at how old our assets are and it is obvious. Problems go way back in EMEC to early 2000s. Mostly related to poor management choices and the addition or STCs and Chiefs who were to internally focused and micromanaged. Dallas finally figured out they were paying too much money and getting too little in return. But they let the clowns who got us in the ho-e make the decisions on who stayed and who left and the same clowns made the same bad choices. There is no hope for exploration now.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @xrr+1ftfYPlz

The exploration staff was largely either laid off or forced into retirement. Management lines for all businesses heavily staffed by engineers (this is NOT meant as disparaging against engineering, but it is a different mindset). In short, exploration is crippled in DWs New World Order.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rxb+1ftfYPlz

Post a reply

: