Tabletop exercises are deeply embedded in the emergency preparedness programmes of large international oil and gas companies. For organizations operating across multiple regions and asset types, they offer a familiar, centralized way to discuss major incident scenarios, align leadership, and demonstrate preparedness. 

They are recognized, defensible, and easy to document. 

But as operations scale and complexity increases, many organizations are quietly questioning whether traditional tabletop exercises still deliver the best balance of cost, effectiveness, and realism. 

Increasingly, the answer is no — not without evolution. 

Why Centralized Tabletop Exercises Became the Norm 

For global operators, tabletop exercises solve several problems at once: 

• They allow senior leadership to participate 
• They enable cross-site discussion in a single forum 
• They are easy to document for audit and assurance 
• They require no site shutdown or live assets 

For these reasons, tabletop exercises remain widely used and accepted. 

However, their limitations become more apparent at scale. 

The Hidden Cost of “Low-Cost” Tabletop Exercises 

While tabletop exercises appear inexpensive, the cumulative cost is often underestimated. 

A single centralized exercise may involve: 

• Senior leaders travelling across regions 
• Site representatives stepping away from operations 
• External facilitators or consultants 
• Preparation time at multiple facilities 
• Follow-up actions, reporting, and reviews 

When highly compensated personnel are involved, the opportunity cost alone becomes significant. Multiply this across annual or multi-annual programmes, and tabletop exercises are no longer the low-cost option they appear to be. 

The Quality Gap: Discussion vs Performance 

Traditional tabletop exercises are discussion-based by design. 

They test: 

• Understanding of procedures 
• Alignment between stakeholders 
• Strategic decision-making 

They do not test: 

• Performance under pressure 
• Navigation of real environments 
• Time-critical coordination 
• Communication breakdowns 
• Behavioral response to escalation 

As a result, tabletop exercises often validate planning — but provide limited insight into how teams would actually perform during a rapidly evolving incident. 

The Regulatory Reality 

Importantly, most regulatory frameworks do not mandate tabletop exercises specifically. 

They require organizations to: 

• Maintain emergency response plans 
• Demonstrate preparedness 
• Conduct exercises proportionate to risk 

This distinction matters. 

It means organizations have flexibility in how preparedness is demonstrated, provided the approach is reasonable, documented, and effective. 

Upgrading a tabletop exercise does not reduce compliance — it can strengthen it. 

From Tabletop to Immersive Simulation 

This is where platforms like STRX change the equation. 

STRX allows organizations to retain the structure and intent of tabletop exercises, while significantly improving realism and reducing cost. 

Instead of discussing a scenario around a table, participants enter a shared, immersive simulation: 

• The same scenario is explored 
• The same decision-makers are involved 
• The same documentation can be produced 

But now: 

• The environment behaves like a real site 
• Conditions change dynamically 
• Decisions carry visible consequences 
• Timing and coordination are exposed 
• Multiple sites can participate simultaneously without travel 

The tabletop is not removed — it is upgraded. 

Cost Reduction Without Capability Loss 

By moving tabletop exercises into a virtual simulation environment, organizations can: 

• Eliminate travel and accommodation costs 
• Reduce time away from operations 
• Include operational staff who rarely attend central tabletops 
• Run exercises more frequently 
• Standardize scenarios across regions 

The result is lower cumulative cost and higher training value. 

Maintaining Legal and Audit Readiness 

From a regulatory and assurance perspective, immersive simulation supports — rather than weakens — preparedness: 

• Exercises remain documented 
• Scenarios are structured and repeatable 
• Participation is traceable 
• Outcomes can be reviewed objectively 

In many cases, simulation provides stronger evidence of preparedness than discussion alone, because it demonstrates behavior, not just intent. 

A Practical Evolution, Not a Disruption 

This is not an argument to abandon tabletop exercises. 

It is an argument to recognize their limitations — and evolve them to match modern operational reality. 

For global oil and gas organizations, the question is no longer whether tabletop exercises are useful. 

It is whether they should remain static while the environment around them becomes more complex, more distributed, and more unforgiving. 

Upgrading tabletop exercises with immersive simulation offers a way forward: 

lower cost, higher realism, and maintained regulatory confidence.