- EXPAS turns fragmented engineering and operational records into a continuous view of explosion risk, rather than relying only on static DSEAR, ATEX or inspection snapshots.
- The platform tracks four risk dimensions: Ignition Exposure, Control Fragility, Escalation Potential and Risk Trajectory, helping operators and insurers see where controls are holding, weakening or failing.
- EXPAS gives insurers, reinsurers and brokers traceable pre-loss intelligence for underwriting, risk selection, portfolio reviews and loss prevention across hazardous industrial sites.
Industrial organisations produce a vast amount of information about how explosion risk gets identified, managed and controlled. DSEAR and ATEX assessments, hazardous area classifications, inspection findings, maintenance activity, equipment records, management of change logs and operating procedures all tell part of the story.
Too often, each source sits apart from the rest. Most of it captures conditions at one moment, then ages.
EXPAS was built to close this gap by turning engineering evidence and operational data into a transparent view of explosion risk, including how that risk changes between formal assessment cycles.
The method centres on operational control. It does not ask only whether assessments, safeguards and systems exist. It asks whether those controls still hold up in practice.
A safeguard might have the right specification and installation record. Its reliability over time depends on maintenance activity, equipment condition, inspection findings, open actions, site behaviours and the management systems supporting it. On their own, those data points look separate. Taken together, according to Beinsure analysts, they reveal the condition of the risk and where control weaknesses start to form.
EXPAS structures this evidence across four connected dimensions: Ignition Exposure, Control Fragility, Escalation Potential and Risk Trajectory.
Ignition Exposure looks at the conditions and operational factors affecting exposure to credible ignition sources. Control Fragility measures the strength of engineering and operational controls used to prevent or mitigate an event. This moves the question beyond control existence and into control reliability.
Escalation Potential examines how an initial event develops when prevention or mitigation fails. It gives operators and insurers a clearer view of the routes through which an incident turns into an explosion, fire, business interruption or insured loss.
Risk Trajectory brings those signals together over time. It shows whether the underlying risk position is stable, improving or deteriorating as site conditions and evidence change.
Transparency sits inside the model. EXPAS does not produce a black-box score. Its intelligence remains traceable to the engineering evidence and operational information behind it, so users see what drives the risk position and where attention belongs.
EXPAS does not replace established DSEAR, ATEX, engineering assessment or inspection processes. It builds on them by connecting information that has usually remained split across documents, systems and site activity.
For industrial operators, the platform gives earlier visibility of emerging control weaknesses and stronger evidence of how explosion risk gets managed. For insurers and risk engineers, it offers a more consistent, transparent view of operational factors behind the underlying risk.
Knowing a control exists tells only part of the story. Understanding whether it still works, what happens if it fails and which direction the risk is moving gives a deeper view of exposure. That shift moves risk management from static assessment to Explosion Risk Intelligence.
EXPAS was designed to show how risk develops between traditional assessment windows. The platform structures engineering evidence and operational risk information into measurable intelligence, including loss probability, maturity bands, deterministic exposure ratings and critical risk flags.
For insurers, reinsurers, brokers and risk engineering teams, EXPAS provides a common framework for understanding explosion risk across individual sites and full portfolios.
The intelligence supports risk selection, underwriting, risk engineering, portfolio visibility and loss prevention. It also separates risks that look similar on paper by assessing how effectively site teams manage critical controls.
Michael Brimble, Founder and CEO of EXPAS, said a site might have the right assessments and documentation in place, but those files do not always tell an operator or insurer what is happening to the risk today. Equipment deteriorates, processes change and controls weaken. EXPAS designed its method to make the activity between those snapshots visible.
A site can have the right assessments and documentation in place, but that does not necessarily tell an operator or insurer what is happening to the risk today. Equipment deteriorates, processes change and controls weaken. We designed an approach to make what happens between those snapshots visible.
Michael Brimble, Founder and CEO of EXPAS
“We combine engineering, evidence and data together to create a common risk language between the people managing the hazard and the people carrying the financial risk. If better managed risk can be identified, measured and demonstrated, we can help make sites safer, give insurers better information and ultimately contribute to preventing losses before they happen”, Michael Brimble said.
The EXPAS approach complements established engineering and compliance work rather than replacing it. Its methodology considers the underlying hazard, potential ignition, engineering and operational controls, management systems, evidence quality and factors affecting escalation.
Every few days, a preventable industrial explosion changes lives. EXPAS exists to stop the next one.
Using data, evidence, control and assurance, EXPAS helps improve explosion risk management with a continuous, evidence-based and trusted model.
EXPAS creates a common language for explosion risk. It moves beyond periodic assessments and static compliance documents, giving operators and insurers a consistent view across sites, assets and portfolios.
A small number of explosion events drive a large share of industrial loss. EXPAS states that less than 4% of incidents account for about 40% of losses. The problem is not visibility after the event. It is the lack of structured pre-loss signals in current underwriting use.
Operational safety evidence often sits in records, audits and procedures without translation into continuous underwriting intelligence. EXPAS treats those records as risk signals.
The company also points to management systems as a major source of loss. According to EXPAS, 57% of explosions involve management system failures. Around 70% of risk recommendations target operational execution, which means the dominant weakness often sits in performance, not asset integrity alone.
Risk does not remain static. EXPAS reads it as it moves through maintenance activity, operational decisions, equipment condition, organisational behaviour and management control.
Where traditional methods provide snapshots, EXPAS captures signals showing whether control is holding or slipping between assessments. It then converts them into a living view of risk behaviour, giving users earlier visibility of emerging exposure and greater confidence in underwriting, engineering and operational decisions.
EXPAS works as a translation layer between site reality and underwriting risk. It draws on more than 300 operational safety indicators to produce a severity-weighted, evidence-based view of explosion risk.
Major losses rarely come from one isolated failure. They build through gaps in controls, behaviours, competence and governance. By detecting that drift, EXPAS creates a live risk fingerprint for each site, giving operators and insurers continuous assurance and a shared view of risk for action.
EXPAS says 57% of barrier failures in major hydrocarbon losses come from management system failures, not hardware failures.
Most explosion losses do not begin with a single failure. They develop through slow deterioration in operational control, maintenance, unmanaged change and weakening safety systems. Those signals appear in operational records, but traditional underwriting and management tools often do not use them.
Compliance software shows whether documentation exists. It does not prove controls are holding. EXPAS provides live evidence of control integrity and operational drift.
IoT monitoring tracks equipment condition. It often misses human and management drift. EXPAS identifies behavioural degradation and new ignition pathways or conditions.
Claims analytics explains historical loss patterns. It does not create pre-loss visibility. EXPAS adds a forward-looking risk trajectory.
The model was built for operators, insurers and reinsurers responsible for hazardous industrial risk. It supports underwriting decisions, portfolio reviews and insured engagement through transparent, evidence-based assurance.
Insurers have a clear reason to pay attention. Explosion risk remains one of the most severe and least observable industrial risks.
EXPAS gives them a view between engineering surveys, helping teams understand control performance, spot deteriorating risks earlier, improve risk selection, support engineering reviews, create more transparency with insureds and use a common risk language.
Operators use EXPAS to improve visibility of explosion risk across assets and sites. Insurers use it to gain a clearer view of industrial risk. Reinsurers use it to understand accumulation and control quality.
EXPAS believes explosion risk should be measurable, transparent and actionable. For operators, asset owners and insurers seeking a more consistent view of explosion risk, the platform transforms operational evidence into a standardised picture across Ignition Exposure, Control Fragility, Escalation Potential and Risk Trajectory.
