_ The drilling sector has spent untold fortunes on smarter rigs and sophisticated software that have added multiple layers of autonomy to the process of well construction. What has struggled to keep up with the pace of change is corporate culture and other human factors. This argument represented the major theme of a recent symposium hosted by SPE’s Drilling Systems Automation Technical Section (DSATS) and the IADC’s Advanced Rig Technology Committee. The event, held in conjunction with the IADC/SPE International Drilling Conference in Galveston, Texas, brought together drilling professionals to assess the path forward for modern drilling systems. The symposium opened with a nuanced discussion on the big issues as seen from the vantage points of representatives from an operator, a drilling contractor, and two service companies. What follows are selected takeaways from their remarks on what the industry needs to do, and what it would be wise to avoid, as drilling operations push further into automation and artificial intelligence (AI). Innovation Sometimes Begins With a ‘No’ Eric Kolstad, executive vice president of wells at integrated shale gas producer Caturus Energy, shared examples from the past 20 years to illustrate how challenges in technology adoption were ultimately addressed. In the earliest case, dating back about 2 decades, Kolstad described his experience with a “basin-leading” operator that was seeking to accelerate asset growth. The problem was that many new drilling locations were increasingly difficult to access because of challenging topography, and the rig market at the time was severely constrained. “The first answer was ‘Well, there’s no more rigs. ’ Management said, ‘Well, that’s your problem—go figure it out, ’” he shared. Contractors were reached and confirmed that no rigs were available to add to the asset, and they were also wary of adding a newbuild to their fleets due to a low confidence that commodity prices at that time would hold and support such an investment. But thanks to the involvement of drilling and wellsite leaders in the field, something Kolstad said proved critical to achieving success, the operator found a way. The strategy changed from relying on slower-to-mobilize skidding rigs to more-nimble walking rigs, and from drilling four wells per pad to one project involving 44 wells on the same pad. Simultaneous drilling, completions, and production operations were adopted as well. “It revolutionized how that company did business in the basin and really revolutionized how the basin did business, ” said Kolstad, adding that “it all started with a ‘no’ and some outside pressure. ” Initially, frontline leaders in the field were among the strongest opponents, arguing that the proposed solutions were either too costly or posed unacceptable safety risks. But as they became more directly involved in the development and implementation process, many of those same leaders emerged as champions of change. They ended up convincing others in the company that big changes were both affordable and safe. Kolstad shared more recent examples that show how difficult it can be to get organizations to adopt automation. In some cases, initial skepticism turned into anger, and that emotional resistance ultimately contributed to deployment failures.
Trent Jacobs (2026) studied this question.