Project Execution Through Risk Addressing (PETRA) Analysis Report

Cite this

Risk 1 PETRA Analysis Results

Table 1. Risk 1 PETRA Analysis.

On-Time Delivery!
Get your customized and 100% plagiarism-free paper done in as little as 3 hours
Let’s start
322 specialists online
CAUSES PREVENTIVE ACTIONS EVENT RECOVERY ACTIONS IMPACTS
a) immature regulatory framework for approval of CO2 sequestration project To develop communication with actors able to inform regarding the status of the approval process to predict the most probable period for the approval process. REGULATORY APPROVAL DELAY To apply the reservation strategy for up to 12 months. A) project schedule delay
To design additional schedules and plans depending on predictions regarding the approval date. To reconsider a schedule and develop a new one.
b) stakeholder intervention and objections To organize stakeholders’ engagement in the project accentuating its benefits for the community. To develop plans for attracting and recruiting employees from the local community. B) reputation damage
To inform stakeholders’ regarding the goals and perspectives of the project to oppose possible objections. To accentuate the organization’s contribution to the community participating in local social and economic initiatives and projects.
c) requirement of the Environmental Impact Assessment To analyze the requirements related to the Environmental Impact Assessment in advance.
To develop the plan of addressing the requirements associated with the Environmental Impact Assessment and implement an effective plan of action. To revise the schedule-driven costs depending on the delay. C) schedule-driven costs
d) difficulties demonstrating containment To complete the analysis of all the aspects associated with containment to determine potential difficulties.
To design a plan of addressing potential obstacles in demonstrating containment. To redistribute the costs and develop a new flexible cost management plan.

Risk 10 PETRA Analysis Results

Table 2. Risk 10 PETRA Analysis.

CAUSES PREVENTIVE ACTIONS EVENT RECOVERY ACTIONS IMPACTS
a) infrastructure to deliver captured CO2 to injection wells for EOR purposes does not exist To analyze what alternative approaches exist to complete the task for the project. IMMATURE CO2 MARKET To develop a plan of addressing a potential economic failure as a result of the project’s delay. A) poorer project economics
To analyze what technologies and infrastructure are used by competitors to develop a plan of action. To determine the areas, the financing of which can be decreased as a result of the project’s delay.
b) delivery of CO2 to EOR injection sites by trucks is too expensive To offer how it is possible to decrease the distance between sites to decrease costs. To improve the cooperation with stakeholders to accentuate the advantages of the project. B) lower attractiveness of the project for stakeholders
To develop a plan of decreasing associated costs involving other transportation modes. To identify the project areas of potential interest for stakeholders to influence their involvement.
c) development of horizontal directional drilling technology becomes an alternative to CO2-EOR To organize effective communication with stakeholders to increase their interest in CO2-EOR. To combine efforts with other important players in the industry to accentuate the role of the project for the community’s progress and economics. C) reputation damage
To emphasize the benefits of CO2-EOR in comparison to other technologies. To emphasize the company’s role in the development of the local community’s infrastructure.
d) O&G companies do not consider CO2-EOR a primary option To inform stakeholders regarding the advantages of CO2-EOR referring to the past projects. To develop an effective plan of action to address such a situation. D) redefinition or cancellation of the project
To accentuate the current stage of the technology development in comparison to other options. To implement an alternative plan of action to cover all the associated costs.
e) there is a gap between economic expectations of the project owner, oil producers, and the government To inform stakeholders regarding the existent gap and its impact on expected outcomes and profits.
To present the analysis of expected gains in the context of the current market development to emphasize potential profits.

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.

Yes, we can!
Our experts can deliver a custom Project Execution Through Risk Addressing (PETRA) Analysis Report paper for only $13.00 $11/page
Learn More
322 specialists online

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.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

BusinessEssay. (2022, January 10). Project Execution Through Risk Addressing (PETRA) Analysis Report. Retrieved from https://business-essay.com/project-execution-through-risk-addressing-petra-analysis-report/

Reference

BusinessEssay. (2022, January 10). Project Execution Through Risk Addressing (PETRA) Analysis Report. https://business-essay.com/project-execution-through-risk-addressing-petra-analysis-report/

Work Cited

"Project Execution Through Risk Addressing (PETRA) Analysis Report." BusinessEssay, 10 Jan. 2022, business-essay.com/project-execution-through-risk-addressing-petra-analysis-report/.

References

BusinessEssay. (2022) 'Project Execution Through Risk Addressing (PETRA) Analysis Report'. 10 January.

References

BusinessEssay. 2022. "Project Execution Through Risk Addressing (PETRA) Analysis Report." January 10, 2022. https://business-essay.com/project-execution-through-risk-addressing-petra-analysis-report/.

1. BusinessEssay. "Project Execution Through Risk Addressing (PETRA) Analysis Report." January 10, 2022. https://business-essay.com/project-execution-through-risk-addressing-petra-analysis-report/.


Bibliography


BusinessEssay. "Project Execution Through Risk Addressing (PETRA) Analysis Report." January 10, 2022. https://business-essay.com/project-execution-through-risk-addressing-petra-analysis-report/.