British Petroleum Project Progress
By Russell Hall
Business 519: Practical Project Risk Management
Dr. Derek O. Griffin, PMP, PgMP
August 30, 2015
The Risk management plan for British Petroleum has drastically changed from the original scope determine by its sponsor at the beginning of the project. The project was to cost $100,000 with duration of six (6) months. The need for the project was because of the Texas City, Texas refinery explosion in 2005 killing 15 people and wounding 180 more (IVEY, 2005). All reports before and after explosion found BP not to be following EPA and OSHA regulations, practices poor management and was in a risk- ...view middle of the document...
It will also be determined if budget or schedule changes will be needed to keep the project from falling apart. Or will it be necessary to go to the project sponsor and ask for additional funds which will provide the needed money and time to complete the project. The most important consideration is to find out why the risk assessment and risk registry possibly missed something important enough to endanger the project.
Impact of Events on BP's Project
The events were occurring in the first two months of the project, running out of money, shortening the schedule by two months could be project ending events, unless the project has already met it objectives. I do not believe that is the case. The objectives of the BP risk management plan will address identifying risk, conduct risk assessment, composes a risk registry, propose risk mitigation, implement risk mitigation, develop, and report and track risk. Until the BP refinery explosion at Texas City, Texas BP had in place an international risk management plan. The plan was universally functional for all BP project around the world. In 1999 when BP bought out Amoco for $60 billion it began stretching its resources. Management began ignoring the facts that the refineries were in dangerous shape and were being held together with bailing wire and glue. BP assumed a position of not wanting to spend any money on bringing the plant into compliance and avoided the potential for risk failure altogether (IVEY). When the explosion at Texas City did occur, BP was put under immediate pressure by the stockholders, the state and federal government, EPA, OSHA, and the general public. All forced BP to recognize the needed for a risk management plan. The sponsor approved the risk management project with a scope of $100,000 budget and duration of six-months. The two greatest threats, poor management and not following EPA and OSHA regulations had occurred through risk avoidance before the project formally began. In fact, they were some of the causes of the Texas City plant failure. Also realizing the top opportunity, following EPA and OSHA regulations means BP has started risk mitigation by adhering to the regulatory demands of the government agencies. The exhaustion of the budget in two months of a six- month project means the risk assessment, the risk registry, and the proposed risk mitigation may have cost more than expected or the budget was configured wrong from the very beginning of the project. It stands to reason if the budget is out of funds than the schedule would end or be shortened. It seems that most of the objectives of the project have been met. Through a workshop, risk assessment, risk registry, and the evaluation of the impact of threats and opportunities were done, leaving the means for risk mitigation to be determined. At this point, the project is not completed nor has it failed. The only thing left to do is for the PM to go back to the sponsor and ask for additional funds to complete the...