What’s the craziest or most unexpected challenge you’ve faced while overseeing a drilling operation, and how did it change your approach to risk management?

A blowout is a “high-consequence, low-frequency” event that proves your controls can fail in a way that overwhelms routine risk tools. After one, risk management typically shifts from general HSE compliance to major-accident-hazard management and barrier integrity.

Here’s what I think changes in practice:

1. The risk lens moves from “worker safety” to “process safety / well integrity”
   Instead of focusing mainly on slips, trips, and job-site hazards, the priority becomes preventing loss of well control. That means explicit attention to primary/secondary barriers (mud hydrostatic head, casing/cement integrity, BOP and well control equipment, kick detection, shut-in procedures).

2. You stop trusting lagging indicators and start managing barriers with leading indicators
   TRIR and general incident rates don’t predict blowouts well. You start tracking things like:

• kick detection performance (pit gain, flow-out anomalies, alarms)
• adherence to well control procedures (shut-in time, crew response)
• barrier status and verification (tests, pressure trends, integrity checks)
• BOP readiness, test quality, and maintenance signals
• change control compliance (any deviation from program)

3. More redundancy, more verification, less “single-point” reliance
   After a blowout, organizations typically add independent checks and require stronger proof that controls work:

• independent well exam / peer review of the well plan
• third-party verification of critical equipment and tests
• tighter criteria for “go/no-go” decisions (pressure tests, negative tests, displacement steps)
• greater emphasis on “two barriers at all times” thinking

4. Stronger Management of Change and tighter operational discipline
   Blowouts often involve drifting from the plan under time pressure. Post-event, you usually see:

• stricter rules on deviations (no informal workarounds)
• formal risk reassessment when conditions change (formation pressure uncertainty, losses, equipment issues)
• clearer authority to pause operations without penalty (stop-work that’s actually supported)

5. The emergency response plan becomes operational, not a binder
   A blowout forces realism. Companies typically:

• upgrade escalation triggers and decision trees
• run more frequent, higher-fidelity drills (including cross-team and external agencies)
• pre-stage resources and clarify roles (well control specialists, incident command, communications)
• tighten community and environmental protection planning (evacuation, exclusion zones, spill response)

6. Culture and incentives get scrutinized
   After a blowout, “time and cost pressure” becomes a formal risk factor. Common changes:

• revising KPIs so crews aren’t rewarded for speed at the expense of barriers
• reinforcing speaking up, challenging decisions, and stopping operations
• leadership field engagement focused on critical-risk behaviors and barrier status

7. Learning becomes system-level, not “operator error”
   The takeaway usually shifts from “someone missed something” to “what conditions made failure likely?” That leads to changes in:

• training and simulations (realistic kick scenarios, ambiguous signals)
• competency validation (not just certificates)
• procedures that reduce ambiguity under stress (short, usable checklists)

If you tell me whether you mean offshore vs onshore, and drilling phase (spud, drilling, casing, cementing, completion), others might be able to offer a set of risk-management moves that match that exact context.

lol you again 😄 what do you mean by “blow out” in this one? Like a blowout preventer situation, or you mean something totally different?