Thread regarding Ovintiv layoffs

Two Office Model - Sorry Denver

Why are we still in Denver? If the company were building its office model today from clean sheet, nobody in their right mind would land on the current three-city model. The epicenter of oil and gas is clearly Houston. That’s where the investors, bankers, dealmakers, and leadership teams actually are. There’s a reason why numerous companies have recently moved there to join the rest of the oil and universe.

At the same time, Calgary still makes sense. It’s a strong base for back-office like accounting, IT, and HR, and some shared services. A simple Houston/Calgary structure would put leadership where the industry actually operates while keeping an efficient, low labour cost hub in place.

Denver is the one that doesn't make sense. The city has a weak oil and gas talent pool, high housing and labour costs, downtown crime, a political climate that’s increasingly hostile to oil and gas and the city literally stinks like you know what. There's a reason why oil and gas companies have been steadily leaving Denver of the past few decades. It's dying a sad, slow death. Strip away the politics and personal reasons and the answer is obvious.

by
| 46 views | | 26 replies (last March 27) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1kkbrjmb0

26 replies (most recent on top)

@2k7 if that is truly a factor in the company’s decision making process, that does not bode well for anything. Hopefully the Board would recognize it and take action.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2qt+1kkbrjmb0

@2kg NAILED IT!!!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2mn+1kkbrjmb0

@2k7 there is no skiing in TX.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2kg+1kkbrjmb0

The CEO's wife likes living outside Boulder. Colorado makes no sense. State taxes HE has no concern about administrative expenses. Texas is oil country. Texas has no state income taxes. Denver downtown is a cesspool.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2k7+1kkbrjmb0

@by I don’t disagree it makes sense to consolidate and seems like Woodlands might be better than Denver for a variety of reasons, but if you look at a map, sure it’s in Texas but I wouldn’t say Houston is “way closer to the asset” than Denver is.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1qf+1kkbrjmb0

@1cf Take off your Ovintiv colored glasses! He is not a great leader, far from it actually. The only the he’s led has been the TRIF rate at this company! You wouldn’t know what great leadership looked like if it slapped you in the face. #rollmyeyes

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1gr+1kkbrjmb0

@cf I don’t disagree that some of the changes made at the VP level do not make sense. However, that “pesky” OPs VP you refer to, is actually highly respected and a remarkable leader. Clearly, you have never worked for him. IF you’re lucky enough, maybe you will get the chance… or maybe you’ll be caught in the mouse trap.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1cf+1kkbrjmb0

@ky "The Woodlands office is being desecrated..........." I do not think that word means what you think it means.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @17k+1kkbrjmb0

@10z Are you out of your mind? Allow a remote option and all that office facilitated innovation and collaboration goes out the window…. oh wait, never mind.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @177+1kkbrjmb0

God forbid Brendan considers a remote optional policy. It's absolutely essential to fight traffic every day to a decaying downtown to get to a near-empty floor, sit in your office with the door closed, and talk on teams all day. Definitely impossible to do that from the comfort of our homes.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @10z+1kkbrjmb0

@ev Shame on you! That doesn’t sound very innovate at all. How will we incorporate that into our agile process?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @kz+1kkbrjmb0

@ey You sound triggered!?!? The Woodlands office is being desecrated and the Denver office is a wasteland, full of yuppies. The employee morale in both office is terrible. It would make more sense to consolidate to Houston for talent purposes but doubtful that’ll happen.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ky+1kkbrjmb0

@d3 honest question, what makes you think that?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @f4+1kkbrjmb0

@ev they have to pay for office space in either place. It’s not like they own the whole building in either city. You pay for one floor in the woodlands or one floor in Denver what’s the difference? Do you know how much it costs to move one employee+family? Where would the cost savings come from? How long to break even on moving 100-200 people? As a shareholder you are up 40% YTD and 2year high why are you so mad ????

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ey+1kkbrjmb0

As a shareholder I demand either Denver or Houston office be closed. Wasting money !!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ev+1kkbrjmb0

BM will be back in Calgary by the end of 2028. Book it!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @d3+1kkbrjmb0

@by I thinks pretty obvious what the future of this company will be. The Calgary team will still be in development mode for years to come, but Ovintiv in the US will turn into a brownfield company. The drilling programs will be an off and on, one rig lease retention type model that will utilize a turn-key D&C package, like the ones that are all the rage for small operators right now. Denver is getting phased out.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cz+1kkbrjmb0

@cf I don’t think it could be any more obvious how little you understand about how these teams operate or what they do. You must be in IT or HR.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cw+1kkbrjmb0

@cf it's God save the King, actually.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ck+1kkbrjmb0

@by ahhhh yes, it makes total sense to have the OPs VP based in Denver, with his staff in The Woodlands. It also makes sense that the asset VP will be based in the Woodlands while his enormous army of Geos and REs and analysts are in Denver. We’ll all be driving our luxury SUVs to the office, just to hop on teams calls all day. What fine labour indeed…But in the end, God save the Queen……Calgary is best, where neither the CEO, COO, nor that pesky OPs VP resides. The reason they call it “The Bow” is because it’s a gift…When the fat cat’s away, the Canadian mice shall play, that’s how I see it.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cf+1kkbrjmb0

@bp I’m in Denver but more or less agree. For example engineers, land, etc where it’s critical to have boots on the ground we should layoff Denver folks and keep Woodlands people instead. US VP of ops is there and its way closer to the asset. Other teams that conduct more centralized functions like Finance, IT, payroll can be anywhere so may as well leave them wherever they are now as there is no synergy to having an IT person that deals with cyber security in one office over another. But it certainly makes sense to me that over time you would phase out Denver as much as possible

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @by+1kkbrjmb0

@bg If an office location is based on where the CEO likes to live it does not reflect well on his or her leadership. I agree that Denver makes little sense as the head office location. Apart from the fact they may have a reasonable deal on rent in Denver at the moment, Houston would make far more sense long term and I suspect that’s where they will end up… with their current CEO or someone else. Paying for a relocations for whoever decides to move would be inconsequential to their bottom line.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bp+1kkbrjmb0

Brendan lives outside of Boulder, CO and apparently loves it. What makes more sense? Layoff or pay to move a bunch of people from Denver? Hire a new crew in Houston? Or downsize Houston this year, and slowly relocate people from Houston to Denver over the next few years? The cheapest option will win.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bg+1kkbrjmb0

Your spelling of the word labour/labor has exposed you and your affiliation

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b5+1kkbrjmb0

Nice try Houston

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ax+1kkbrjmb0

Stop making sense.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a6+1kkbrjmb0

Post a reply

: