Frequently Asked Questions

Even well-delivered projects leave open points at package interfaces, tie-ins, performance standards, readiness for safe operation and the lifecycle integrity of SCEs — where the responsibilities of the parties blur. The review focuses on this project-specific integration without duplicating work already adequately demonstrated and authorized. On the other hand, where the licensor, the EPC and vendors disagree on a safety requirement, DSIB, as an independent participant, reviews the technical basis, clarifies responsibilities and documents the agreed position and any remaining decisions for the responsible parties.

DSIB can provide a defined owner-side function covering safety planning, technical coordination, reviews and action tracking. Authority, reporting lines and interfaces with the project team are agreed at appointment. Under the agreed engagement, DSIB can also prepare the complete project safety dossier.

No. DSIB provides technical assessments against the regulations, standards and project requirements identified in the agreed scope. Its reports state the assessment basis, evidence and limitations; they do not replace statutory approval.

No. DSIB does not issue statutory authorisations or certificates licensing assets or individuals.

At any lifecycle stage. Concept and FEED involvement allows safety requirements to inform design before procurement and construction commitments. Later engagements can address execution, commissioning, operation, modification or decommissioning. DSIB can also join an ongoing project: A specific issue, project stage or defined set of deliverables can be reviewed using the current project baseline.

The line here is thin and genuinely gray: Design safety effort is scoped to the contract and the applicable codes, not added on top of them. Where the client has not requested separate deliverables, DSIB helps define what the contractor’s existing obligations already require and phases the studies onto deliverables the project produces in any case. Undocumented safety decisions tend to return during execution as technical queries and change orders; a proportionate, well-timed dossier is usually the cheaper path and strengthens the contractor’s position at handover.

Yes. The scope may cover one study, one project gate or a wider assurance programme.

Safety reviews and assurance studies can be contracted on their own, independent of who performs the engineering. Depending on where the project is, typical scope might include:

• Inherent Safety Review
• Layout Safety Review
• FSA 1+2+3
• Early Phase PHAs
• Design HAZOP
• 3-Guide-Word task analysis for preliminary safety-critical procedures
• ALARP demonstration study
• Consolidation of risk registers
• PSSR
• TIV report for SCE
• HRA on safety-critical tasks and close-out report
• Typical safety check-point for DCNs

Each review states its Terms of Reference prior to the engagement.

We work with asset owners, licensors and technology providers, operators, project developers, engineering companies and contractors. We work internationally with industries that extract oil and gas and with those that produce, process, transport or store hazardous substances; technical risk advisory also extends to other capital projects, with scope and delivery arrangements agreed for each assignment.

Advisory roles typically run under retainer or framework agreements; audit and assessment scopes as lump-sum assignments; engineering dossiers under lump-sum or framework terms aligned with project phases. The model is agreed per assignment.