@OP We should be cutting funding for Wells. Senior Wells Leadership is trying to spin this “technical competency drift” narrative as if recent Exploration Well failures weren't the cumulative result of poor selections from their shop. They have to course-correct first, then receive funding. Where is the accountability?
what is at risk - Just Upstream's strategic vision if Exploration success dependent. The Nargis-2 outcome has become an industry embarrassment—a glaring sequence of human performance failure and arguably one of Chevron's worst deepwater outcomes. All the more reason the line management below is trying to pin their failures and outcomes on Subsurface or others' competency gaps. I smell a training program coming.
We don't need McKinsey to identify the problem. An independent leadership assessment would likely expose and recommend the following:
- Wells Exploration Director — Incompetent. A rudderless organization, confidently misdirected. Leadership change is overdue. The VP of Wells must act. Grade: F for accountability.
- Wells Engineering Manager — Technically misaligned. Lacks the technical depth and management effectiveness required. Better suited for non-technical leadership or support.
- Nargis_2 Wells Team Lead — Incompetent. Hands-off, technically deficient, and lacking team credibility. Selected largely on fraudulent previous experience, with perceived favoritism undermining confidence (he golfs). Remove from Nargis-3 planning. Retrain.
- Talent Management — Politically filtered. Critical feedback appears to reach the Wells VP only when convenient. Assurance signals are softened by favoritism.
This isn't competency drift. It's technical leadership erosion by design. Accountability remains a joke. Please try again