← Risk register SOC 47-5071 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Roustabouts, Oil and Gas

44,970 US workers · median $46,960/yr · Construction

EXPOSED

Roustabouts assemble and dismantle wellhead equipment, dig and backfill ditches, bolt flanges, clean tanks, sling loads and swab out spills — none of which a language model can touch and none of which current field robotics handles in mud, heat, and H2S. The exposure here is not AI writing your work away; it is that the job carries no license, no client relationship, and almost no decision authority, so it is priced as interchangeable labor and shrinks with rig counts, pad automation, and remote monitoring that reduces the number of hands per site. Modal worker is a general laborer on a service crew, not a lead operator.

10-year outlook: Ten-year employment tracks drilling activity and pad automation far more than AI — expect fewer hands per site with steady demand for the ticketed rigger, tanker driver, and pressure-control-qualified worker.

US employment, 2019–2025-23.7%
58,93044,970 workers

Nearly all of this fall was the 2020 shock. It has been climbing back since.

Median pay $38,910 → $46,960 -3.4% in real terms (nominal +20.7%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

+2.5% 46,000 → 47,100 on the projections basis

Growing, and only partly exposed

The BLS expects +2.5% more of these jobs by 2034, and at 50/100 the work is only partly exposed — some tasks are automatable, the core of the job is not. Nothing here is in tension.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~4,300 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

Rig HandFloorhandFloor HandOil RiggerRoustaboutGang WorkerDerrick HandGas Floor HandOil Floor HandRoustabout HandCathead OperatorField SpecialistConnection WorkerOil Field LaborerOil Rig RoughneckRoustabout PusherTerminal OperatorCasing Crew PusherDrill Rig OperatorEquipment OperatorFuel Farm OperatorOil Rig Floor HandOil Field RoustaboutGun Perforator Loader

Score — 50/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (19/20). Weakest point: trust premium (4/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 17 + 19 + 4 + 4 + 6 = 50. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 17/20

Tasks largely resist digitisation Breaking out a stuck flange with a hammer wrench, guiding a load on a tag line, and shoveling out a saltwater spill on an uneven pad are physical sequences no software substitutes for; the 17 rather than 20 reflects that some of your shift — gauging tanks, logging fluid levels, walking the pad to check for leaks — is already being pulled into remote SCADA and pad automation, so the headcount per location falls even while the remaining tasks stay manual.

Embodiment 19/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments You work outdoors on a live wellsite with H2S monitors on your belt, in mud, ice, and 100-degree heat, hauling joints of pipe, digging ditches by hand where a trencher won't fit, and climbing tank batteries — a 19 because virtually nothing happens at a screen, with the point off only for the occasional in-truck paperwork and toolbox talk.

Liability shield 4/20

No licence, no signature requirement No state licenses roustabouts; H2S awareness, SafeLand/PEC, and a Class B CDL are employer-imposed access cards you can be replaced with in a week, and the operator's engineer and the company man own the well's regulatory exposure — a 4 rather than 0 only because those safety tickets and the CDL are real barriers to walking on cold.

Trust premium 4/20

Anonymous artifact production The operator contracts your crew's hours through a service company, and any interchangeable hand who shows up sober and rigged out fills the slot — the 4 reflects that a foreman who knows you don't drop tools and a pumper who requests your crew by name has real value in getting rehired next hitch, but no client picks the service company because of you.

Judgment & accountability 6/20

Executes defined procedures on defined inputs Your calls are torque specs, lockout-tagout steps, load charts, and the JSA that was written before you got on site; a 6 rather than 2 because you decide when to stop the job — a gas alarm, a frayed sling, a soft trench wall — and that stop-work authority is yours in the moment even though the well's ambiguous decisions belong to the company man.

Confidence: high · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: embodiment, physical-presence

How to future-proof this job

Training paths for your skill gaps: MIT OpenCourseWare — operations management free · Khan Academy — reading and vocabulary, all levels, free free · Apprenticeship.gov — electrical, HVAC, plumbing and fitting programs that pay while you learn paid to train · Coursera — customer service and client-facing skill courses free to audit · OSHA Outreach Training — the 10- and 30-hour cards most employers ask for low · edX — operations management and process monitoring courses free to audit

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

Where this experience transfers — occupations you could move toward

Computed from U.S. Dept. of Labor O*NET skill and knowledge profiles: high overlap with what you already do, a materially higher resistance score, no large jump in required training, and no licence you would have to start a new pipeline to get. Targets that pay meaningfully less, that are themselves COOKED, or whose own headcount is falling are excluded — a move into a shrinking trade is not an escape.

Refractory Materials Repairers, Except Brickmasons EXPOSED · 65/100 · you already have ~89% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Operations Analysis, Reading Comprehension

Automotive Body and Related Repairers EXPOSED · 65/100 · you already have ~84% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Installation, Operations Analysis, Reading Comprehension, Service Orientation

Crane and Tower Operators SAFE · 67/100 · you already have ~83% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Operation and Control, Reading Comprehension, Operations Analysis, Operations Monitoring

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 63/100, still EXPOSED.

4 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening judgment accountability +4

    Task-mix shift as pad automation removes routine hands: the remaining field position becomes the person who calls stop-work, judges whether a joint is safe to break, whether gas readings permit entry, whether a lift is within bounds. If operators formalize stop-work authority with personal sign-off on a JSA — already contractual on many majors' sites — the residual role owns consequential ambiguous calls

  • already happening liability shield +3

    Insurer-driven rather than statutory: if E&P operators' well-control and pollution carriers required documented individual certification (SafeLandUSA plus task-specific bolt-torque/rigging credentials) for anyone touching pressure-containing connections, as offshore lifting already requires qualified riggers under API RP 2D

  • already happening task resistance +2

    If the crew shrinks to one or two per pad, the surviving work is the non-repeatable tier — leaks, stuck equipment, storm damage, unmapped legacy wellheads, plug-and-abandonment of poorly documented old sites. The P&A backlog (state orphan-well programs, federal IIJA orphan-well funding) is inherently non-standard work that no fixed automation is built for

  • plausible liability shield +4

    Federal or state rules that make specific roustabout tasks require a named, individually certified holder — e.g. if BSEE/PHMSA or a state oil and gas commission mandated certified flange-joint integrity technicians (as ASME PCC-1 Appendix A qualification is already contractually required by some majors) or if OSHA finalized a confined-space/H2S entry rule requiring a credentialed attendant and entrant with personal recordkeeping duties, tank cleaning and vessel entry stop being tasks any crew member can be assigned

The limit. Trust premium has no realistic route: the buyer is an E&P operator or service company purchasing labor hours through a contractor, with no end customer who could prefer a human. Any gain here is bounded — liability and judgment credentials attach to lead hands and operators, and a general laborer on a service crew can be promoted into them but the laborer slot itself stays interchangeable. Headcount risk from rig count and pad automation is independent of every dimension above.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 40 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 5,850 $47,260 +1%
Midland, TX 3,940 $47,180 +0%
Odessa, TX 2,060 $45,650 -3%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 1,740 $48,030 +2%
Greeley, CO 910 $48,540 +3%
Lafayette, LA 910 $49,970 +6%
Oklahoma City, OK 800 $49,930 +6%
Pittsburgh, PA 800 $47,830 +2%

Best paid

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 40 $71,280 +52%
Columbus, OH 60 $66,940 +43%
Jackson, MS 60 $60,410 +29%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $46,960. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 50. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.