Case Study: 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$$s group chief executive, Lord John Browne. After the Baker report was released, the company attempted to mitigate the damage in its $2006$ annual review: Importantly, the panel did not conclude that BP intentionally withheld resources on any safety$-$related assets or projects for budgetary or cost reasons. The panel interviewed hundreds of employees in the course of its work and observed that it had seen no information to suggest that anyone $$ from BP$$s board members to its hourly paid workers $$ acted in anything other than good faith$\mathrm{.}2$ 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$$s facilities had been compromised in favour of profits, cost savings or lack of management supervision. The Texas City disaster was caused by organizational and safety deficiencies at all levels of the BP Corporation. Warning signs of a possible disaster were present for several years, but company officials did not intervene effectively to prevent it$\mathrm{.}3$ These reports were just the most recent of many concerns hurting the reputation and performance of the world$$s second$-$largest super major oil company and leading to a drop in share price from US$$70\mathrm{.}41$ on January $17,2006,$ to US$$63\mathrm{.}28$ on January $16,2007\mathrm{.}4$ As well, the public release of this information had destroyed nearly US$$39$ billion of market capitalization since August $2006\mathrm{.}5($Exhibit $1$ presents a comparison of the stock performance of the world$$s super$-$major oil companies$).$ During this period, the price of crude oil had risen nearly $20$ per cent$\mathrm{.}6$ 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 date$7,$ 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$$50$ million severance package Browne was set to receive upon retiring. Many wondered how the board could award him such a large package after such poor performance over recent years. Browne had been credited with saving and taking BP to new heights and was one of the most respected business leaders in the United Kingdom. At the same time, however, it was clear that in recent months the firm$$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 next. BRITISH PETROLEUM 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$\mathrm{.}8($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 on 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 technology. Answer the following questions: Analyze how the critical success factors $($CSFs$)$apply to facts of the case study, provide examples to support your analysis. Determine the project benefits, organization readiness, and risk culture of the company in the case study, provide justification of your response. Devvelop at least three project risk recommendation based on your analysis. I dentify the initial categories of risk $($RBS levels $1$ and $2)$ that you see as being present in the case study.