In the past decade, a single critical equipment failure in a refinery has cost operators hundreds of millions of dollars in downtime, penalties, and lost reputation - sometimes triggered by an issue an audit should have caught. In industries where failure can mean injury, environmental disaster, or permanent brand damage, the question isn’t whether to audit - it’s whether your audits are finding the risks that matter most, early enough to act.

In technically intensive industries—such as Oil & Gas, Exploration & Productions, Refineries, Petrochemicals, LNG, Power & Utilities, Renewables, Chemicals, EPC, Logistics, and Hazardous Materials Management—engineering consultants and technical teams are under constant pressure to deliver safely, efficiently, and on time. Their work must enable operations and production to progress without delay or compromise.

However, any error, omission, or non-conformance in engineering and technical execution can have severe consequences, including threats to human safety, environmental damage, reputational loss, or production downtime.

Most organizations already operate under certified management systems. They carry out routine audits, check compliance and file the reports. Yet, over time, a question quietly surfaces: are these audits really helping us see the risks that matter most?

What is a risk‑based technical audit programme?

A risk‑based technical audit programme, or RBTAP, approaches that question differently. Instead of starting with a checklist, it starts with a conversation: where could failure hurt us most - on our people, the environment, operational reliability, safety, or business continuity?

This method relies on highly skilled auditors who possess both technical expertise and deep domain knowledge. Ideal candidates hold engineering degrees—preferably in Petroleum, Mechanical, Chemical, Instrumentation, Electrical, Process, or Production disciplines—and bring experience across exploration, manufacturing, design, operations, HSE, or project engineering. They must also demonstrate strong familiarity with industry standards, codes, and regulatory frameworks such as API, ASME, IEC, ISO, and OSHA.

Auditors then focus their attention on operational areas like onshore/offshore assets, critical facility/ infrastructure. Rather than looking only backwards at documentation, they look forwards to live technical performance. The result is an audit that acts less like a scorecard and more like an early‑warning system.

Why timing matters

Projects and operations are never static. Designs evolve, assets age, and operational contexts change. A risk‑based audit recognises this. It is timed to coincide with key decision points, when insights can actually influence the outcome.

These moments often include:

• Right after a design is formally issued, while changes are still possible
• Just before a project hand over to operations, when readiness must be proven
• After major Shutdowns, Turnarounds, and Outages (STOs), statutory requirements, OEM/licensor guidance, or operational incidents, when lessons can be built in for the next cycle

Rather than following a fixed calendar, the audit follows the rhythm of the work itself.

Choosing what to focus on

A common challenge is knowing where to look. A risk‑based approach asks the simple but powerful question: if something went wrong here, how serious would it be?
That lens tends to draw attention to areas such as:

• New or unfamiliar technologies
• Equipment operating at extreme pressures or temperatures
• Interfaces involving hazardous or toxic materials
• Integrity management in older assets
• Shutdowns, Turnarounds, and Outages (STO)
• Recurrent themes from past incidents

By focusing here, the audit becomes a practical tool for learning, not just a compliance exercise.

How a risk‑based approach changes the conversation

A meaningful audit is not just a desk exercise. It involves walking the site, asking questions, and testing assumptions. It means sitting down with engineers, HSE teams and operators to understand how decisions are being made and implemented in real conditions.

This is why the expertise of the auditor matters. They need the technical depth to interpret complex designs and the experience to see what might go wrong in practice, procedure and standards. They also need the confidence to challenge constructively, and the humility to listen.

Moving from findings to insight

In risk‑based audits, not all findings are equal. Major issues - those that could lead to harm, environmental impact or significant downtime - demand immediate action. Lesser issues are treated as early signals, prompting teams to fix small gaps before they widen.

Crucially, insights are shared beyond the project or site in question. In doing so, the organisation builds a collective understanding of risk that strengthens decision‑making everywhere.

Towards a culture of assurance

The natural resource and energy sectors are operating in a world of increasing technical complexity and ever‑lower tolerance for error. In such an environment, a traditional compliance audit may not be enough.

Risk‑based technical audits do not replace compliance; they build on it. They encourage teams to focus assurance effort where it counts and to think beyond the paperwork. Over time, they help to embed a culture in which assurance is not an event but an ongoing practice - woven into the way engineering and operations are done every day.

A risk‑based audit is more than a process. It is a way of asking better questions about our technical decisions and of giving ourselves the chance to act before risks become incidents.