Question Details


Assignment 3: Risk Workshop and Risk Register

Due Week 6 and worth 240 points

Note: The assignments are a series of papers that are based on the same case, which is located in the Student Center of the course shell. The assignments are dependent upon one another.

Write an eight to ten (8-10) Risk Workshop and Risk Register Component paper in which you:

  1. Identify the required pre-workshop activities.
  2. Prepare a risk workshop agenda based on Figure B-8, Sample Agenda for a First Risk Assessment / Two ? Day Risk Workshop (Appendix B of the Hillson and Simon text). Include suggested time intervals for each activity and justify why each agenda item is relevant for this case.
  3. Determine the top five (5) threats in a risk register following Figure B-11, Sample Simplified Risk Register Format (Appendix B of the Hillson and Simon text). Include information from the case for each threat.
  4. Justify the assignment of probability and impacts for each threat identified in criterion number 3 of this assignment.
  5. Document the top three (3) opportunities in a risk register following Figure B-11, Sample Simplified Risk Register Format (Appendix B of the Hillson and Simon text). Include information from the case for each opportunity.
  6. Justify the assignment of probability and impacts for each opportunity identified in criterion number 5 of this assignment.
  7. Use at least two (2) quality resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar Websites do not qualify as quality resources.

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

  • Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides.
  • Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student?s name, the professor?s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:

  • Assess and prioritize risks to the project through an analysis of the active threats and opportunities presented.
  • Apply the Active Threats and Opportunities Management (ATOM) process to ensure a consistent, measurable result of this analysis.
  • Use technology and information resources to research issues in project risk management
  • Write clearly and concisely about project risk management using proper writing mechanics.





In April 2007, the board of British Petroleum (BP) faced a difficult decision. A month earlier,


two independent reports (the first commissioned by BP and chaired by former American


Secretary of State James Baker; the second commissioned by the U.S. Chemical Safety and


Hazard Investigation Board) were released investigating an explosion in 2005 at a refinery in


Texas City in the United States that killed 15 people and injured more than 180. After exhaustive


investigations, the reports identified a history of poorly regulated safety measures in the plant


and risk management, the blame for which seemed to focus on the firm?s group chief executive,


Lord John Browne.


After the Baker report was released, the company attempted to mitigate the damage in its 2006


annual review:


Importantly, the panel did not conclude that BP intentionally withheld resources on any safetyrelated assets or projects for budgetary or cost reasons. The panel interviewed hundreds of


employees in the course of its work and observed that it had seen no information to suggest that


anyone ? from BP?s board members to its hourly paid workers ? acted in anything other than


good faith.2


In fact, there had been other independent reports, one in 2004 and then again three months after


the 2007 Baker report, that were less forgiving of BP?s ?culture of safety.? The 2007 report


from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board suggested that safety in the


company?s facilities had been compromised in favour of profits, cost savings or lack of


management supervision.


The Texas City disaster was caused by organizational and safety deficiencies at all levels of the


BP Corporation. Warning signs of a possible disaster were present for several years, but company


officials did not intervene effectively to prevent it.3


These reports were just the most recent of many concerns hurting the reputation and performance


of the world?s second-largest super major oil company and leading to a drop in share price from


US$70.41 on January 17, 2006, to US$63.28 on January 16, 2007.4 As well, the public release


of this information had destroyed nearly US$39 billion of market capitalization since August


2006.5 (Exhibit 1 presents a comparison of the stock performance of the world?s super-major oil


companies). During this period, the price of crude oil had risen nearly 20 per cent.6


In January 12, 2007, Browne announced that he would retire from BP. This was somewhat of a


shock to the board and the investment community because his retirement date was roughly 18


months before his mandatory retirement date7, and, in the past, he had campaigned to remain in


his post past the retirement date. Others were concerned that his successor may not yet be fully


prepared to step into the top job. What was also a shock was the announcement of the over US$50 million severance package Browne was set to receive upon retiring. Many wondered


how the board could award him such a large package after such poor performance over recent




Browne had been credited with saving and taking BP to new heights and was one of the most


respected business leaders in the United Kingdom. At the same time, however, it was clear that in


recent months the firm?s performance had suffered significantly. More and more evidence


pointed to systemic problems within BP that had been allowed to grow during his tenure,


creating the culture of risk in which the BP board now found itself reducing shareholder


confidence and risking lives and the firm?s reputation. It was up to the board to decide what to do






British Petroleum plc, (BP) was founded in 1908 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and was


started with a single well in a remote area of Persia after nearly eight years of searching. From


this humble beginning, in less than half a century, the firm grew to be the largest in the United


Kingdom and one of the largest in the world, employing over 100,000 people in over 100


countries.8 (Exhibit 2 presents selected financial information for the year ending 2006, and


Exhibit 3 presents the biographies of the BP board, as published in the 2006 Annual Report.)


The petroleum industry, while lucrative due to insatiable global demand, was also one that


involved enormous risks. The days of cheap, easily accessed oil appeared to be over and what


remained was often located in areas that were politically and socially unstable. Huge amounts of


capital were required to find oil, refine it and then deliver it to the many end users. Risk also


stemmed from the fact that although the timing was up for debate, no one doubted that,


eventually, either through the development of new technology to replace petroleum or through a


simple lack of product, a company that was focused only oil would go out of business. To that


end, BP tried to protect itself by attempting to stave off the loss of product by spending billions


on exploration for new reserves and on the downstream technology of refining and distribution to


control the entire value chain. At the same time, BP also tried to diversify into new energy


generation technologies.


BP?s business was divided into three segments9: oil exploration and production; oil refining and


marketing; and gas, power and renewables.


Oil Exploration and Production


In 2007, BP was actively exploring for oil in 26 countries around the world, which over the years


had provided the firm with proven reserves of 18.5 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalents


leading to daily production of roughly four million barrels per day. BP had plans to start 24 more


major projects by 2009, which would provide additional reserves of over 3.7 billion barrels with


an additional production of 850,000 barrels per day. Oil Refining and Marketing


Oil refining and marketing took the crude oil BP pumped from the ground and turned it into


various products like gasoline, kerosene and motor oil, products which were then sold to


consumers either through the firm?s own distribution network of over 25,000 gas stations or to


other sellers. Oil refining was a technically complex and highly capital-intensive activity. In


2006, BP owned outright or was part owner of 18 refineries processing the equivalent of 2.8


million barrels a day.


Petroleum could also be refined into chemicals known as acetyls that were used in numerous


consumer products. A statement from the firm indicated the acetyls? pervasiveness:


Our acetic acid can be found in jars of pickles. Our acetyls feedstock is used to make Viagra. We


invented the purified teraphthalate acid (PTA), used in both clothes and polyethylene


terephthalate (PET) bottles for water and soft drinks (and we recycle many of those bottles into


fleece pullovers). We are proud to have a world-class PTA business. We also make paraxylene


(PX), the raw material for PTA.10


Gas, Power and Renewables


As one of the leading oil producers for most of the 20th century, BP, in more recent years, had


attempted to reposition itself. The slogan ?BP: Beyond petroleum? had been coined to present


BP as a company that was preparing for a world that was past its dependence on petroleum. In


2005, BP Alternative Energy was launched to consolidate the company?s low-carbon energy


initiatives. By 2006, BP claimed to be a world leader in power generation from solar, wind and


gas-fired power plants, with plans for additional investment and research into hydrogen power






John Browne, The Lord Browne of Madingley, became chief executive officer of BP in 1995 at


the age of 45. He was knighted in 1998 and was made a life peer in the British House of Lords in


2001. By all accounts, Browne was one of the most successful CEOs in the firm?s history,


credited with turning BP into one of the largest and most successful energy companies in the


world. Browne became known for his willingness to take risks and to pursue big deals and,


under his leadership, in 1998, the acquisition of American oil company Amoco was engineered.


The deal was worth more than US$60 billion, an amount that literally doubled the firm?s sales


and reserves. In 2003, BP created a joint venture with Russian oil giant Yukos, providing the


firm with 50 per cent access to reserves of over 44 billion barrels of oil or oil equivalent and


additional production of about 1.2 million barrels a day, at a cost of US$6.8 billion and the


associated risk of operating in the Russian business environment.11 By many accounts, Browne was a well-respected business person who, while being one of the


most powerful business executives in the United Kingdom, was also very private; little was


known about his personal life. He was reputed to be a close friend of then British Prime Minister


Tony Blair.


Along with turning the firm around, Browne was credited with setting the vision for BP as one


that would focus on life beyond petroleum. That slogan meant more than merely planning to


become an energy company rather than a petroleum company; it meant BP was a firm that cared


about the environment and the safety of its employees more than it cared about oil and profits.


Blair had appointed him to the U.K.?s Sustainable Development Commission. The commission


described itself as:


The Government?s independent watchdog on sustainable development, reporting to the Prime


Minister, the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales and the First Minister and Deputy First


Minister of Northern Ireland. Through advocacy, advice and appraisal, we help put sustainable


development at the heart of Government policy.12


The firm took great pains to provide evidence of its focus on the environment and safety in


numerous reports and websites, and it undertook investments and made contributions to


environmental groups. Codes of conduct for employees covering numerous activities ?


including safety and the environment, policies on corporate governance and statements about


social responsibility ? were all crafted under Browne?s watch. The webpage on the BP


corporate website entitled ?Responsible Operations? had links to topics like ?Health and


Safety,? ?Management and Compliance,? ?Environment,? ?Compliance and Ethics? and


?Our People.?




Having been involved in the process of refining crude oil for over 70 years, the Texas City Oil


Refinery, the third largest refinery in the United States, had long since paid for its initial


investment. The facility came to be a BP asset with the 1999 acquisition of Amoco, and although


the explosion on March 23, 2005, which killed 15 people and injured more than 180, was the


worst in company history, it was by no means the first accident at the facility.


Described as ?being held together by little more than Band-Aids and superglue? by Don Parus,


the refinery?s director,13 there had been 23 fatalities in the previous 30 years. Since 2002, when


Parus took over operations at the plant, there had also been an average of one fire a week,


ranging from 50 to 80 a year.14 Parus is quoted as wondering why his staff actually came to


work: ?killing somebody every 18 months seems to be acceptable at this site . . . why would


people take the risk, based on the risk of not going home??15


In 2004, an independent Texas consulting firm called Telos Group was contracted by the Texas


City refinery director to assess the safety culture of the plant. In its report, Telos exposed numerous pieces of evidence to suggest that safety at the refinery was being compromised as


repairs or servicing were not effectively completed in attempts to save money or when workers


simply were unable to follow the safety procedures. A report in the Financial Times mentions


?broken alarms, thinned pipe, chunks of concrete falling, bolts dropping 60 feet, and staff being


overcome with fumes?16 as well as ?numerous workers at the plant complaining of pressure


not to report injuries and safety violations.?17


The Telos report suggested that although there seemed to be a willingness on the part of the


refinery?s management team to maintain a safe working environment, desire and reality may


have been two different things. Exhibit 4 provides excerpts from the Telos Report. The


consultants concluded that there seemed to be an ingrained culture of risk at the refinery, which


would require a great deal of effort to change, and that, in the past, after an accident, efforts to


make changes started out strong but faded as management?s attention drifted back to profits and




Many still too easily see a future where it all slides back to ?the way it was before the incidents,?


and so people ?pray and hope that this will not pass? . . . we were told many stories about times


that left the distinct impression that margins could beat out safety as long as they were good


enough . . . ?here we are today and they still haven?t kept promises that make our people out


there feel safe?. . . ?Soon becomes never around here? mentioned one person in the refinery,


pointing to successive postponements; starting with fixing it ?soon (meanwhile we put a clamp


on it), which then becomes next week, which becomes next month, which becomes next


turnaround, which becomes never.?18


In apparent support of this statement, a few months after the March 2005 explosion, there were


two additional explosions causing over US$ 32 million in property damage, and then, in 2006,


another worker was killed on the job.


The 2007 U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSHIB) report, which


examined the explosion and BP?s safety culture in general, revealed that after the 1999


acquisition of Amoco, rather than making much-needed safety improvements, BP ordered a 25


per cent cut in fixed costs at all its refineries. The report went on to condemn the firm by




The combination of cost-cutting, production pressures and failure to invest caused a progressive


deterioration of safety at the refinery. Beginning in 2002, BP commissioned a series of audits


and studies that revealed serious safety problems at the Texas City refinery, including a lack of


necessary preventative maintenance and training. These audits and studies were shared with BP


executives in London and were provided to at least one member of the executive board. BP?s


response was too little and too late. Some additional investments were made, but they did not


address the core problems in Texas City. In 2004, BP executives challenged their refineries to


cut yet another 25 per cent from their budgets for the following year.19 These comments echoed the findings of the Baker report. This report, which BP had stated was


very supportive of their safety culture, could be interpreted differently than BP?s own


interpretation. Exhibit 5 presents excerpts from the report?s Executive Summary entitled


?Corporate Safety Culture.? Clearly there were differences of opinion between the firm and the


independent observers with respect to the depth of BP?s culture of safety. Despite the difference


of opinion, since the explosion, BP had paid out about US$2 billion in terms of compensation


payouts and lawsuits.20




With Browne?s impending resignation, there was undeniable evidence of big problems


throughout the organization with regard to safety and the firm?s reputation. As a result, BP?s


lack of public credibility affected the already-stated strategy and goals of the firm. The board


knew that changes needed to take place from the top down. The obvious question: Where to




Solution details:

This question was answered on: Sep 18, 2020

PRICE: $15 (25.37 KB)

Buy this answer for only: $15

This attachment is locked

We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free copy from our tutoring website (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .

About this Question






Sep 18, 2020





We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.

You can also use these solutions:

  • As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
  • As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
  • For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student.


Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround

Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.


Order Now