Anyone who has a great skillset and is worth something will not stay at Chesepeake because people who know what they want and have a healthy career path do not want to let their reputation be ruined.
I noticed a long time ago that the experience in this company does not have any weight at all, and it became especially clear to me when I started looking for a new job.
5 replies (most recent on top)
As someone who has looked over many shortlisted resumes, I can assure you having a lengthy chk run is a negative. You can overcome it at the interview, but we will be checking hard for competence and team skills.
What talent was ever there once has all flew the coop. They knew chk was a growing stain on a resume.
Chesapeake is a huge joke in the rest of the industry, and has been for a while. Even in its heyday, it was (and still is) an irresponsible operator that over paid for all its acreage, overdrilled every play they've ever been in, and has made many an attorney rich by causing the untimely demise (RIP) and injury of people and the environment. 7 billion dollars doesn't just evaporate without massive misconduct and incompetence & the rest of the industry knows that.
Not true if you have CHK on your resume you will discover it is a hindrance not a help for new opportunities, especially in the Land arena. Most other organizations feel CHK’s Land staff was always overpaid, not very technically strong, underworked, and had an attitude of better than others. The most recent Land VP tried to change the image and attitude of all and look where it landed him. Out the door and embarrassed by the EC!!!
It all depends by your professional figure, you can’t generalize.
Being this a company traditionally run by land and Geos, they do have their weight and historical footprint.
On the other hand, if you are from finance and engineering (especially drilling and completions) backgrounds, you may want to hide your Chesapeake years in your CV if possible!