24/7 rig site job - Logger Halliburton Employee Review

2.0
Aug 20, 2013
Recommend
Business Outlook

Pros

You can make good money, but you are going to be working a lot to get it. They hire just about anyone, and they don't waste much time when it comes to sending offer letters.

Cons

It's a 24/7 job. The management of Sperry, the side that does mud logging and mwd is very unorganized. You will be called out at the last minute a lot, only to make it to the rig and find out that the managers knew days ago but forgot or waited to tell you. They will tell you there isn't any work, 2 hrs later they will tell you they need you at a rig tomorrow, and 2 hrs after that they will tell you nevermind. I think they do it on purpose to the new people just to see how much they can get away with. Not a lot of opportunities to move out of the field and into a more technical role. No work/life balance, especially in the first year. The promotion system makes it very arduous to move up. It's good if you want to make some good money for a few years after school, but after that you may want to move on. After a few years the salary doesn't match the amount of work you perform. They lose about 25% of the field hands per year, either because they are overworked, don't like the job, or don't see where they can move up. From what I've seen Schlumberger (geoservices) pays more, has better technology, better training, and more capable personnel.

Explore other reviews about Halliburton

5.0
Jun 29, 2026
Recommend
Business Outlook

Pros

The company has great benefits

Cons

The con would be you are constantly in inclement weather.

1.0
Jun 18, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
Business Outlook

Pros

* Strong brand recognition and opportunity to work on large-scale marketing initiatives. * Exposure to technical subject matter and cross-functional collaboration. * Good place to learn how large enterprise organizations operate.

Cons

I joined in a hybrid role where flexibility was an important factor in accepting the position and making personal life decisions. Within about a year, the organization moved to a full return-to-office model. While companies can change workplace policies, the transition felt abrupt and inconsistent in practice. A recurring challenge was that expectations around in-office presence did not always appear to match day-to-day reality. Remote participation still occurred for meetings and operational needs, which created confusion around when flexibility was acceptable and when it was not. Within my department, I also experienced challenges around communication and collaboration. Feedback on projects sometimes arrived late or only after priorities had shifted, and in some cases work was reassigned or substantially changed without clear involvement from the original contributor. Public criticism of work product without prior coaching made it difficult to improve or feel ownership over deliverables. Leadership communication during organizational changes often felt more focused on compliance than employee concerns. Employees raising questions about work arrangements sometimes perceived limited space for open discussion. Over time, the combination of reduced flexibility, inconsistent application of expectations, and limited recognition of specialized contributions negatively affected morale and trust.

2
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All