Risk 1 PETRA Analysis Results
Table 1. Risk 1 PETRA Analysis.
Risk 10 PETRA Analysis Results
Table 2. Risk 10 PETRA Analysis.
Analysis of Results and Recommendations
The assessment of the identified uncertainties for Project Curiosity has contributed to the determination of two critical risks that can be viewed as potential project game-changers. These specific uncertainties need to be evaluated in detail concerning the PETRA (Project Execution Through Risk Addressing) analysis. The discussion of the PETRA analysis results for Risk 1 and Risk 10 will potentially indicate what additional recommendations can be applied for Project Curiosity to ensure its realization. The purpose of this report is to analyze the PETRA results related to the risks and assess whether other recommendations need to be provided in addition to the steps discussed by the review board.
Four causes can potentially lead to such uncertainty as to the regulatory approval delay (Risk 1) and provoke three critical impacts. Furthermore, five causes can be associated with the development of the immature CO2 market (Risk 10) and result in four particular consequences for the project. In order to address these risks, the Decision Gate Review Board formulated some recommendations. They include the negotiation of the steps with the government to facilitate the project approval; the discussion of incentives for oil producers; and the involvement of oil producers as partners (Raydugin, 2013). Other recommendations are to intensify the communication with oil producers on CO2 purchasing contracts, to engage stakeholders through demonstrating potential advantages, to modify the schedule, and to develop an alternative plan (Curiosity-B) (Raydugin, 2013). These recommendations seem to directly reflect the preventive and recovery actions that have been listed in Table 1 and Table 2, presenting the PETRA analysis results for Risk 1 and Risk 2.
The fact that the recommendations provided by the Decision Gate Review Board reflect the recovery actions for the project explains the necessity of adding only a few details to the risk management plan. Some specific recommendations should be added to the plan in addition to the discussed ones, depending on the analysis of the impacts and steps proposed by the review board (Raydugin, 2013). To decrease the reputation damage, it is necessary to design an effective plan for building relationships with the local community to accentuate the role of the project for the community and the realization of local social and economic initiatives and projects (Bui et al., 2018). In the context of this strategy, it is necessary to focus on attracting and recruiting employees from community members. This step can be reflected in the recommendations on the actions to improve the communication with stakeholders, but more attention should be paid to accentuating how Project Curiosity can contribute to the public (Tan et al., 2016). It is also necessary to focus on developing a plan, the main goal of which is to prevent the development of the poorer project economics.
The recommendations that were proposed and formulated by the Decision Gate Review Board can be discussed as effective to address the identified issues and problems. Therefore, only some adjustments and additions are proposed to guarantee more effective risk management for Project Curiosity. As a result of conducting the PETRA analysis, it is possible to identify the areas that require much attention from managers in order to guarantee effective communication and cooperation with the government and stakeholders.
References
Bui, M., Adjiman, C. S., Bardow, A., Anthony, E. J., Boston, A., Brown, S., Fennell, P. S., Fuss, S., Galindo, A., Hackett, L. A., & Hallett, J. P. (2018). Carbon capture and storage (CCS): The way forward. Energy & Environmental Science, 11(5), 1062-1176.
Raydugin, Y. (2013). Project risk management: Essential methods for project teams and decision makers. John Wiley & Sons.
Tan, Y., Nookuea, W., Li, H., Thorin, E., & Yan, J. (2016). Property impacts on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) processes: A review. Energy Conversion and Management, 118, 204-222.