Draft text under review by DAC.
- Test one
- Test two
Para A
Para B
Capability Example: Root Cause Analysis of a Pipeline Failure
SECTOR
SERVICES
FORUM
Illustrative animation. People and facilities shown are not from the project.
Illustrative animation. People and project visuals shown are not from this matter.
Illustrative animation. Equipment and project visuals shown are not from this matter.
Illustrative animation. Equipment, diagrams and charts are schematic, not case evidence.
Illustrative animation. Structures, schedules and cost diagrams are schematic, not case evidence.
Illustrative animation. Pipeline geometry and inspection visuals are schematic, not case evidence.
Thank you. We have received your message, and a member of the DAC team will be in touch.
The situation our client faced
A critical pipeline supporting a major oil and gas operation suffered a catastrophic failure, causing environmental damage and operational downtime.
The event led to a dispute involving the operator, contractor, and suppliers. The central questions were not simply whether the pipeline had failed, but:
- What caused the failure?
- Did material defects, installation, environmental conditions, operations, or maintenance contribute?
- Which technical findings were supported by the available evidence?
- What losses resulted from remediation and interrupted operations?
What the client needed from DAC
The client needed an independent root cause investigation that could help its legal team and the tribunal understand the failure mechanism, test competing explanations, and assess responsibility.
DAC was asked to:
- Establish the primary and contributing causes of the failure.
- Assess the roles of material condition, installation, maintenance, operations, and environmental factors.
- Test competing allegations of defects, negligence, and maintenance failures.
- Present clear, defensible expert reports and evidence supported by technical and operational records.
How we approached the matter
DAC examined the failed pipeline segment, material test results, operating data, maintenance records, and relevant site conditions.
The investigation combined metallurgical and structural analysis with a review of pressure and flow history, corrosion risks, and external stresses. Where records were incomplete, DAC used the available physical and operational evidence to reconstruct the likely sequence of events.
Note: DAC selects the method that best fits the available physical evidence, operational records, contractual requirements, and the question the tribunal needs answered. A root-cause investigation was appropriate for this matter; it is not a one-size-fits-all solution.
What this example demonstrates for you
When a critical asset fails and responsibility is disputed, DAC can help you:
- Identify the technical cause and contributing factors.
- Test competing explanations against physical and operational evidence.
- Connect technical findings to responsibility, remediation, and financial loss.
- Give counsel and the decision-maker a coherent, evidence-based explanation of the case.
Does this resemble your situation?
Every dispute is different. But if your matter involves a pipeline or industrial-asset failure, corrosion, material defects, installation issues, maintenance concerns, environmental damage, or operational losses, this example may provide a useful starting point for discussing how DAC can help.
Facing a similar matter?
Discuss your matter with us. We will assess the issues and assemble the right technical, delay, and quantum expertise.