Project Risk Register: Example

Read-only source example, not a live client register. Identification, assessment, controls, responsibilities and review are retained. Unavailable source calculations are not zero. All 155 populated entries are included.

Source assessment heading: 1. FULL PRODUCTION Identification 02nd December 2026

Source row 6: General to other Projects: SharePoint Project Files hard to follow and disjointed. Can lead to files being double handled or misplaced or not tracked, need DCC assistance rather than retrieving on own. (Not user friendly)

#: 1
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: Doccument Control
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-03-23
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: SharePoint Project Files hard to follow and disjointed. Can lead to files being double handled or misplaced or not tracked, need DCC assistance rather than retrieving on own. (Not user friendly)
Consequences / Impact: All documents for Project require easy logical tracking and current difficult to track and hard to ensure are fully correct and completed. Wrong information be stored and latest edition not known, correspondance not correct, quality checks unknown
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: 2024-03-24
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Understanding all the Phases & Stage Gates and organising files into the correct area will vastly increase the efficiency of the project and bring understanding of current status within a Project.
Risk Actions Description: PMO and Document Control to organise files in unison and ensure Traceability and easy to Track.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: Start of Project
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 9
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Raised concerns with upper management on 26th March 2024 and need goahead to change filing system
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Currently under better construction 11/13/2025
Lessons Learned: Better standard of filing and reduce the risk of failure.

Source row 7: General to other Projects: Need to ensure Document Control has the correct training and qualifications to hold such a critical position.

#: 2
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: Document Control
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-20
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Need to ensure Document Control has the correct training and qualifications to hold such a critical position.
Consequences / Impact: It has been witnessed consistantly that the person incharge of Document Control does not have sufficient training which severly impacts the Project performance. Regular problems include, latest up-dated system drawing not issued, duplicate areas of information storage, personnel files used for information, lack of organising transmittals and daily correspondance, not making files easily tracable.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: 2025-11-20
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Retrain current Document Control or Hire a Better Qualified Document Control
Risk Actions Description: Massive Impact on normal work activities and time taken away from doing the job when searching for information which should be readily available
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start of Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: ASAP to ensure all DCC are efficient
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Hiring Correct people who understand the Project requirments

Source row 8: General to other Projects: PM not picking own Project Management Team at the start of a Project

#: 3
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: Recruitment
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-17
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: PM not picking own Project Management Team at the start of a Project
Consequences / Impact: A Project Manager should choose their own team based on the abilities each member brings to the team. Using none approved / personally vetted personnel runs a high risk of Project failure
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 16
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -15
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Vet all new people prior to starting on the project.
Risk Actions Description: Do not accept personnel from outside or other projects without correctly vetting them
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: Start of Project
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start of Phase 1
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Any person joining the project any any Phase to be vetted
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: To be discussed with upper management ensure no interferrance.

Source row 9: General to other Projects: Not having key Personnel in position prior to specific Phase needs

#: 4
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: Recruitment
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-17
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Not having key Personnel in position prior to specific Phase needs
Consequences / Impact: Essential personnel are required to prepare key documentation prior to implementation. Noted lack of Quality Personnel, Construction Manager & Commissioning Personnel during the Initiation Phases and beyond leaving critical gaps in the construction and accuracy to Contractors.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Production/Reliability
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 16
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -15
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Hirer the correct personnel much earlier than currently the case
Risk Actions Description: Prevent the reliance upon the Contractor to produce documentation which will be used at a later date
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: Start of Project
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start of Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Personnel should be recuited immediately for preparing documentation
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Risk register to be reviewed on a monthly basis with upper management and ensure request is actioned ASAP.

Source row 10: Project had Insufficient Risk Register material. So largest risks not quantified or appreciated

#: 5
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: Planning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-03-23
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project had Insufficient Risk Register material. So largest risks not quantified or appreciated
Consequences / Impact: Important items previously raised by concerned parties or individuals not captured and recorded in one central location. Parties and individuals may have left the project or reassigned and can no longer be recorded. If it can't be accounted for it can't be measured and resolved.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 2
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 10
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -9
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Implement Risk Register ASAP, gather all internal correspondance and review current status of Project with all concerned personnel
Risk Actions Description: Ensure sensior management of buy-in and implement
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Closed
Action / Completion Date: Start of Phase 1
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: To discuss Project status during weekly Client Project Management meeting. Resolution expected within 1 week 03/24/2024
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: C
Risk Closure Date: 2025-11-13
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: PM Created a more comprehensive Risk register that captured Early Production and Water Inject Scenarios. No buy-in from PMO
Lessons Learned: To be discussed with upper management to review and ensure all project risk registers are upto date.

Source row 11: (Check but not witnessed) Not having a Full & Comprehensive Organisation Chart with all Roles & Responsibilities covering all disciplines including Client & Contractor

#: 6
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation II
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-08-12
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: (Check but not witnessed) Not having a Full & Comprehensive Organisation Chart with all Roles & Responsibilities covering all disciplines including Client & Contractor
Consequences / Impact: Due to the lack of Client handling of large projects it is essentail to ensure that a comprehensive list of Roles & Responsibilities is issued for management to make better informed decisions on manning. It is also essential to ensure the Contract has sufficine t manpower at each phase of the Project
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 4 month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 12
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Write a comprehensive list of Roles & Resposibilities from all the procedures used on a Project and create an organisational Chart that will cover
Risk Actions Description: Prevent the reoccurance of not fully manning up Projects with the correct personnel
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Closed
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 1
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Personnel should be recuited immediately for preparing documentation
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: C
Risk Closure Date: 2025-08-12
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: No ambiguity in what roles are required for each Phase, also helps with Hiring criteria required when job advertised
Lessons Learned: Wrote a Full & Comprehensive Roles & Responsibilities for each Phase & created organisation charts for each phase of a Project

Source row 12: General to other Projects: Milestone Payments have to accurately match up with Project Milestones

#: 7
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: Finance
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Milestone Payments have to accurately match up with Project Milestones
Consequences / Impact: The Company need to keep a tight financial control of Milestone Payments which will reflect the work that has been fully completed at each Project Milestone. Any ambiguity will impact the payment process (paying out before work has been 100% completed)
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure meticulous reviews are completed before issuing the Miles Stone Payment and Milestone Phases (matching work scope)
Risk Actions Description: Early payment of any work not yet carried out will carry a high Risk of work not being completed thus delaying the project and high probability of reduced quality.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: Start of Project
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 1
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Need review all milestone payments and phases and issue with ITT payment form
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Meticulous review of when contract payments have to be paid including % per Phase and withholding payment for insurance of quality of work

Source row 13: General to other Projects: need to restructure 3rd Party payment milestones to reflect the correct level of payment for work carried-out

#: 8
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-17
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: need to restructure 3rd Party payment milestones to reflect the correct level of payment for work carried-out
Consequences / Impact: To much money paid up front and the quality of the workman ship on equipment, spares, documentation is has an extremely poor level of After Sales Service. This directly iimpacts the quality of work and delays the Project
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 12 month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 16
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -15
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Restructure payment and withhold 35% of payment until the equipment has been delivered to site and physically checked off and stored correctly
Risk Actions Description: Currently final payments are made before equipment is even seen. No leverage on suppliers once payments are made.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Closed
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 1
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: As soon as any payment for new equipment is being considered then structure is required.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: To be discussed with upper management ensure changes to payments are fully approved and implemented.

Source row 14: General to other Projects: After Market assistance needs to incorprated into contracts and penalties incurred if assistance is not made readily available.

#: 9
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-17
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: After Market assistance needs to incorprated into contracts and penalties incurred if assistance is not made readily available.
Consequences / Impact: Paying to much of contract value in advance gives the vendor / contractor the opportunity not to assist in After Market assistance. Previous companies have disbanded support teams after final payment made before equipment has reached port. Placing a Project at Risk
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 12 month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Withhold % of payment to ensure After Market Sales are made available once equipment has arrived on site
Risk Actions Description: Currently final payments are made before equipment is even seen. No leverage on suppliers once payments are made.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 1
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: As soon as any payment for new equipment is being considered then structure is required.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: To be discussed with upper management ensure changes to payments are fully approved and implemented.

Source row 15: Project: Allowing same company the contract for FEED, Detailed Design and Construction of Equipment. There is a Risk of delays in Procurement and Potential Non-Performance by suppliers, leading to project schedule slippage and potential disruptions in the supply chain.

#: 10
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-17
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Allowing same company the contract for FEED, Detailed Design and Construction of Equipment. There is a Risk of delays in Procurement and Potential Non-Performance by suppliers, leading to project schedule slippage and potential disruptions in the supply chain.
Consequences / Impact: Zero check and balance when passing through the various Phases from the Front End Engineering, to the Detailed Design to the Vendor Build. When mistakes are made during an early Phase of the Project the same set of people are used at the next Phase and the mistakes are not captured as part of a "Check and Balance" during project development. Placing a Project at High Risk
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 3
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 3
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -22
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Do not issue critical Phases of a Project to a single source, FEED Contractor should never be able to bid for EPC. Implement a defined procurement and contracting strategy, including pre-qualifying suppliers and conducting thorough due diligence. Establish clear contractual terms and performance indicators
Risk Actions Description: Same Team on FEED completed Detailed Design and basic errors never picked up through any Phase Gates and then constructed (EPC Phase). Same people looking through the same lense.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: Start of Project
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Prior to starting to discuss contract set-up with potential companies. Diversify the supplier base to mitigate reliance on a single supplier. Monitor supplier performance and have contingency plans in place for potential delays or non-performance.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: To be discussed with upper management ensure changes to Contracts are fully approved and implemented.

Source row 16: General to other Projects: Very slow Change Order Management and approval process within NOC

#: 11
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Very slow Change Order Management and approval process within NOC
Consequences / Impact: Change Orders & Approval Processes are very very slow and are not processed as a matter of urgency. Project Team members have become accepting of the excessive delays in the process that are stopping Projects advancing
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 3
Severity (after mitigation): 2
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 6
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure somebody from Procurement department is part of the PMT (dedicated support) to aid the process.
Risk Actions Description: Project will continue to fail without the correct support system in place
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: Start of Project
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start of Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Need Upper Management approval
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: To be discussed with upper management ensure changes to PMT Team are fully approved and implemented.

Source row 17: General to other Projects: Need to ensure Project Manager has an Emergency Budget Available for small essentails. Current set ups massively delay Projects.

#: 12
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-20
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Need to ensure Project Manager has an Emergency Budget Available for small essentails. Current set ups massively delay Projects.
Consequences / Impact: It has been witnessed that the Project Manager does not control any funds for emergency equipment. Everything has to go through upper management and massively slows the Project down. Spares that may only take days to arrive on site now take several months. Not a progressive way of working.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 4 months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Request Upper management / Chairman that in the interest of all future Projects a percentage emergency budget to be agreed that can be controlled through the Project Manager
Risk Actions Description: Projects can come to a halt due to current method of controlling finances that 100% restricts Project Managers from working efficiently and creating delays in projects
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: Start of Project
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 1
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Once budget has been approved for the project shall be the time to rectify and create an Emergency Budget for a Project.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: To be discussed with upper management ensure changes to current financial procedures will start to include an emergency budget to ease delays on Projects.

Source row 18: General to other Projects: Lack of quality Contractor capabilities within Libya. Potential risks associated with the installation/ maintenance/ dismantling of the modular units PAU / PAR. E.g. Lack of local construction expertise to be used as subcontractors

#: 13
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Lack of quality Contractor capabilities within Libya. Potential risks associated with the installation/ maintenance/ dismantling of the modular units PAU / PAR. E.g. Lack of local construction expertise to be used as subcontractors
Consequences / Impact: Client continue to suffer with quality 3rd Party Contractors to aid Projects and thus impact the quality and duration of work. Client are paying top money for inferior quality services.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 3
Severity (after mitigation): 3
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 9
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -16
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Use newer Companies and offer incentives for each Phase Completed on time that shows the necessary qualities. Direct Hire Client personnel for each System being Constructed and report issues on daily basis directly from Site (Reduce the Punch Items).Construction Contractor to assess local expertise and develop mitigation plan to ensure required expertise is available.
Risk Actions Description: Low Quality Work increases Punch Items during Walkdown at MC. Employing Client person (Lead) per System Area on site will inspect Contractor work on an hour by hour and eliminate all Punches created and ensuring everything delivered on time.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: Start of Project
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Contractor to review modularisation construction on a case by case basis with NOC during EPC. Research and Prepare information about new Companies (Libya) in preparation for bidding Process, discuss with Management about increasing closer on site Project scrutiny.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: To be discussed with upper management ensure changes to current practices will be included once the budget approved.

Source row 19: General to other Projects: Lack of Interdepartmental Communication, resulting very slow responses

#: 14
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Lack of Interdepartmental Communication, resulting very slow responses
Consequences / Impact: Client have implemented a structure that reduces interdepartmental communication and responses are communicated through Memo's and system does not work. Need regular weekly meetings organised with each Project and deparment designated representative (MPD, Engineering, Reservoir, Drilling, HSE, Security, Finance, Planning, Procurement)
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 9 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 3
Severity (after mitigation): 3
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 9
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Request Chairman approves the use of weekly meetings between Projects and Client Departments to reduce response time and enhance Project understanding.
Risk Actions Description: Constant delays with response from departments can lead to several months delay on each action item. Current system does not work in present format
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: Start of Project
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Need to resolve this issue ASAP and does not require a budget to implement action Item
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ueed better Upper Management involvement (approval) in ensuring departments work more closely together. Weekly meetings

Source row 20: General to other Projects: have never been given a list of members or a decription of how each committee helps a project through Internal Company Processes (NOC, MPTC, 2P, Client, Zuitina, Melita etc), Owners Management Committiee, Management Committee, Tender Committee, Project Steering Committee

#: 15
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: have never been given a list of members or a decription of how each committee helps a project through Internal Company Processes (NOC, MPTC, 2P, Client, Zuitina, Melita etc), Owners Management Committiee, Management Committee, Tender Committee, Project Steering Committee
Consequences / Impact: The internal Company Process and Company interaction is confusing and lumbersom and does not seem to quicken any process. It is difficult to write an accurate schedule when the internal process times are unknown.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 3
Severity (after mitigation): 3
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 9
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Need Upper Management to clarify exactly the people involved in each type of Committee and the timescales of approvals. Also who points of contact are for each Libyan involved client Company
Risk Actions Description: Difficult to plan each Phase when internal involvement is shrouded in obscurity and without an understanding of the Roles & Responsibilities of each member of each team
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: Start of Project
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: L
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Resistance to change upper management accountability. Need to learn from mistakes and realise how painfully slow projects are being performed.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Management to look at rate of Project turnover and implement change.

Source row 21: General to other Projects: Lack of Authority given to the PMT to manage a Project in line with Common Industrial Standard Practices. Levels of Authority are set by the Owners who don't have the technical understanding of PMT teams, therefore hindering Project Decision making and impacting Project Progress

#: 16
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Lack of Authority given to the PMT to manage a Project in line with Common Industrial Standard Practices. Levels of Authority are set by the Owners who don't have the technical understanding of PMT teams, therefore hindering Project Decision making and impacting Project Progress
Consequences / Impact: As owners are setting the PMT Authority Limits without fully understanding the impact of such decisions then the Projects will continue to suffer in both time and financially.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 5
Severity (after mitigation): 3
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 15
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -10
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Unlikely for Owners to provide Autonomy in PMT Decision Making process to allow a better flowing Project to evolve
Risk Actions Description: Will continue to suffer the same restrictive and costly ways of working with no change expected.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: Start of Project
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 1
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Need review and approval from Owners which will never actually happen
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Very little chance of change and Projects will continue to suffer.

Source row 22: General to other Projects: Lack of increased working hours when on assignment (Inspections, FEED, Workshops, Detailed Design, Field Project)

#: 17
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Lack of increased working hours when on assignment (Inspections, FEED, Workshops, Detailed Design, Field Project)
Consequences / Impact: Due to lack of increased hours when employees are on assignment 8 hours per day and 5 working days significantly hinders the operational time of employees compared to 3rd parties 10-12 hours a days minimum 6 days working. Lack of due dilergence from client on inspecting work provided by 3rd Parties will impact the quality of work and unnecessarily increase time on assignment.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 12
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Match work hours to Contractors hours and if work is needed urgently work hours increased for both 3rd party and Client representative
Risk Actions Description: Delays in checking materials and documents will occur if mismatch in hours between 3rd parties and client. Mismatch will increase cost and time of completion.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: Start of Project
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 1
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Need review and approval from Owners which will never actually happen
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Very little chance of change and Projects will continue to suffer.

Source row 23: General to other Projects: Ensure all supporting information for 3rd Parties conclusion of each Phase has been completed in advance to prevent 3rd Party services concluding incomplete work due to lack Client Support

#: 18
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Ensure all supporting information for 3rd Parties conclusion of each Phase has been completed in advance to prevent 3rd Party services concluding incomplete work due to lack Client Support
Consequences / Impact: Client not providing adequate supporting information (Surveys, agreements, approvals, geology, topography, security, logistics etc) to 3rd Parties whilst carrying out critical Phase work can result in substandard and inaccurate reports, documentation, designs etc. Late execution of surveys and delayed data availability
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure all supporting information required by a 3rd party completed in advance of required date
Risk Actions Description: If information is not provided to 3rd party the results concluded will not be full realised and rework will be required
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 1
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Need to ensure all the necessary studies required by 3rd parties are completed. Ensure a comprehensive list of supporting documentation has been requested from 3rd Parties
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Meticulous review of when contract payments have to be paid including % per Phase and withholding payment for insurance of quality of work

Source row 24: General to other Projects: Lack of Cybersecurity

#: 19
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: Security
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Lack of Cybersecurity
Consequences / Impact: The Company continue to be attacked from cyber security issues and work has been delayed and lost to to incidents. Loss of Time with all computers down, loss of intellectual
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 3
Severity (after mitigation): 3
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 9
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -16
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Seek professional help from outside the Company and protect the Project System from the rest of the main servers of the Company once the budget has been agreed.
Risk Actions Description: Poor cyber security currently exists, and a high Risk of failure is expected. Multiple previous attackes and multiple Project Delays.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Resistance to change system when hacked, Replace cyber security system.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Management to look at rate of Cyber Attacks and approve cyber security.

Source row 25: General to other Projects: No approved Phase / Gate Approval Checksheet Compiled

#: 20
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: Planning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: No approved Phase / Gate Approval Checksheet Compiled
Consequences / Impact: To-date no clear defined Stage Gate / Phase Approval that can allow a project to officially move from one Phase to the Next. Ambiguity causes chaos and time delays and increased associated costs
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Involve all key personnel within Project Department, set aside an entire day in discussing the various Phases and list all the necessary criteria required. Make for large project so smaller projects can reduce content
Risk Actions Description: Unable to accurately move from Phase to Phase without incurring a lot of additional work at the next Phase which will heavily affect the cost and time of completion
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Clarity needed at the very beginning of the Project with Phase Checksheet given at the start of a Project
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Involve all critical members of MPD ASAP to review and approve content

Source row 26: General to other Projects: No official list of documents and there contents for each Phase of the Project that require preparing and all associated interfaces

#: 21
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: Planning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: No official list of documents and there contents for each Phase of the Project that require preparing and all associated interfaces
Consequences / Impact: To-date no clear defined Phase Tick-Off List of required documentation for all Disciplines and Departments for each Stage Gate / Phase of a large project
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 2
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -23
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Involve all key personnel and professional PMO personnel within Project Department to compile the necessary document list required for each Phase and its content. Use previous Project Documentation to aid compilation and contents
Risk Actions Description: Need clarity of content to ensure the ease of flow of information and correct guidance on specific Phases of the project without this critical information will not be presented when necessary
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Fully understanding what documents are required and its content at the beginning of each Phase is critical for Project Success
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Involve all critical members of MPD ASAP to review and approve content

Source row 27: General to other Projects: Due to inadequate Project Management and oversight, there is a High Risk of Cost Overruns, Budget Mismanagement and/or Poor Quality Control leading to Financial Losses and compromised Project Performance.

#: 22
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: SA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Due to inadequate Project Management and oversight, there is a High Risk of Cost Overruns, Budget Mismanagement and/or Poor Quality Control leading to Financial Losses and compromised Project Performance.
Consequences / Impact: Complete Failure of the Project
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2-3 Years
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 2
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 4
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -21
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Transfer risk to contractor through progress monitoring requirements and cost overrun liability. Mitigate: Invest in Detailed Project Planning and Coordination. Develop comprehensive Project Schedule and Procurement Plan. Establish effective communication channels among stakeholders. .
Risk Actions Description: Need Upper Management buy-in or Company will continue to perform with the same low standards.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Regularly review and update plans to identify delays or resource constraints. Implement robust project management practices with experienced professionals for effective coordination
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Top Management to initiate change

Source row 28: General to other Projects: Clarity of Contract, to many points of ambiguity.

#: 23
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: SA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Clarity of Contract, to many points of ambiguity.
Consequences / Impact: There is a Risk of Contractual Ambiguities or Disputes, which may arise due to inadequate Contract Terms or Lack of Clarity in key Project Aspects, potentially leading to Conflicts, Delays, and Legal Complications.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 2
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 4
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -21
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure clear and detailed contracts that address all key project aspects, including scope, specifications, timelines, payment terms, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Engage legal experts to review and draft contracts. Establish a strong contract administration process to monitor compliance and resolve any contractual issues promptly. Allocate contingency 10% of Procurement Cost
Risk Actions Description: Additional early expense when involving Legal Experts to sort Contracts, but worth the cost later in the Project
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Additional External Monitoring of the Project to ensure contracts are being adhered to.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Expert Help required when drafting the Contract.

Source row 29: General to other Projects: There is a risk of Client Payment Delays, Cash Flow issues, or unforeseen Financial Challenges, which may affect the Project's Financial Stability, Supplier Relationships, and Overall Project Progress.

#: 24
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: NOC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: SA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: There is a risk of Client Payment Delays, Cash Flow issues, or unforeseen Financial Challenges, which may affect the Project's Financial Stability, Supplier Relationships, and Overall Project Progress.
Consequences / Impact: Unable to pay Contractor or Workforce will immediately stop work and harbor mistrust and damage the reputation of Client
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 2
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -23
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Mitigate :Implement a robust financial management system to monitor project costs, cash flow, and payments. follow a clear WBS / CBS for reporting .Maintain clear payment terms in contracts and ensure timely payment to suppliers and contractors. Establish contingency funds or financial reserves to mitigate potential financial risks., contingency of 10-% of budget
Risk Actions Description: Client at the will of NOC and have no say when the finances will be made available
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Understood but not able enact at this stage of the Project
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Involve all critical members of MPD ASAP to review and approve the Plan of Action. Do not commit to anything unless Finances are available.

Source row 30: General to other Projects: Due to Inadequate Safety Measures and Poor Adherence to Health and Safety Protocols,

#: 25
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: HSE
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: SA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Due to Inadequate Safety Measures and Poor Adherence to Health and Safety Protocols,
Consequences / Impact: There is a High Risk of Accidents, Injuries, or Fatalities during the Construction of Faregh Upgrade, leading to potential Legal Consequences, Project delays, and reputational damage.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 2
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -23
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Advise contractor to develop a robust health and safety management plan compliant with international standards and local regulations. Implement comprehensive safety protocols, provide adequate training, and conduct regular inspections. Engage qualified safety professionals and enforce strict adherence to minimize accidents, injuries, and legal consequences. KPI s: 1. Total Recordable Incident Frequency (TRIF): 2. Lost Time Injury Frequency (LTIF): 3. Near Miss Reporting Rate: 4. Safety Training Completion Rate: 5. Safety Inspection Findings Closure Rate: 6. Compliance with Safety Protocols and Procedures:
Risk Actions Description: Client has to be reliant upon the Contractor for increased Safety, Client should be leading
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Management buy-in required.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Increase the quality of Client HSE Department. Require external outside help in attaining better safety standards

Source row 31: General to other Projects: The lack of clear commonality (cohesion) and integration between Client Documentation with clashes in process description and lack of clarity in both the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and Cost Breakdown Structure (CBS) levels, as well as a lack of guidance and requirements (integration) between all other documentation that feed into the Project Schedule creates confusion.

#: 26
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation I
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: SA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: The lack of clear commonality (cohesion) and integration between Client Documentation with clashes in process description and lack of clarity in both the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and Cost Breakdown Structure (CBS) levels, as well as a lack of guidance and requirements (integration) between all other documentation that feed into the Project Schedule creates confusion.
Consequences / Impact: Unable to educate members of MPD in Project Methodology due to lack of cohesion and document connectivity creates ambiguity in description and difficulties in measuring performance. This results in misunderstanding of Project sequencing leading to difficulties executing the project and in calculating Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Feasibility Phase 1
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of the Project
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 2
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 4
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -16
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Continuously monitor and adjust documentation to ensure commonility, flow and understanding in all documentation: Monitor performance measurement, address integration issues, and refine criteria and payment guidelines based on feedback and lessons learned. Increase external Auditing, ensure constant monitoring. Establish a clear hierarchy for these structures, ensuring integration for accurate performance measurement. Ensure all activities are linked to the WBS and CBS structure to aid the project schedule for real-time monitoring, accurate measurement,
Risk Actions Description: Confusion and MPD members refusal in accepting in accepting change. Start at the very base of a Project and build from the bottom or task will fail. Buy-in from other departments.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 1
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Additional External Monitoring and Auditing required, need management buy-in.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Expert Help required when starting re-structure.

Source row 32: General to other Projects: Invitation to Tender (ITT) for Concept (Pre-FEED) maybe required when a better understanding of options needs solidified to aid Management decision. Client provide inadequate information during the ITT Process

#: 1
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 3. Commercial
Stage of Project Risk: GATE I
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Invitation to Tender (ITT) for Concept (Pre-FEED) maybe required when a better understanding of options needs solidified to aid Management decision. Client provide inadequate information during the ITT Process
Consequences / Impact: Contractors (Specialist) needs too bid for Concept Phase 2 (Pre-FEED). Information provided by Client has to be comprehensive and accurate with surveys. Provisional supporting documentation should be provided by Client to aid Concept Results.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: GATE I Concept Phase 2 Pre-FEED ITT
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: GATE FEED ITT & FEED Phase 3
Exposure Start Date: Start of ITT for Pre-FEED
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 12
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure all Philosophies, SoW, BoD, General Specifications, Execution Plans, Procedures, R&R, Org Charts, NOC General Forms, Risk Management Documents are all Completed prior to FEED Starting
Risk Actions Description: When all documentation is left to the Contractor the price will increase and the work will be substandard (majority of time). A clear target for quality will not be achieved. NOC need to lead proceedings not be led. More completed documents at ITT then less questions and higher quality services provided from Contractor.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Start of ITT for Pre-FEED
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Start to review all documents without budget approval and ensure all documents are fully reviewed and approved
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure management buy-in and ensure a strong team can support the PMT

Source row 33: General to other Projects: Potential Risk during Contract Award approval may not be secured in a timely manner, which result in delays to the Project Schedule

#: 2
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 3. Commercial
Stage of Project Risk: GATE I
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Potential Risk during Contract Award approval may not be secured in a timely manner, which result in delays to the Project Schedule
Consequences / Impact: Incomplete documentation submitted for tender approval, leading to multiple review cycles. Delays in obtaining required signatures and authorisations from relevant stakeholders. Insufficient allocation of resources for preparing and submitting the tender application. Lack of transparency in the tender evaluation process, resulting in uncertainty and delays. Changes in key personnel responsible for tender approval, leading to disruptions in the Decision-Making process.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Years
Project Phase: Risk Effected: GATE I Concept Phase 2 Pre-FEED ITT
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: GATE FEED ITT & FEED Phase 3
Exposure Start Date: Start of ITT for Pre-FEED
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 2
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -23
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Grass Root change in approach to completing a Project
Risk Actions Description: Time required for change in the biggest hinderance after Upper Management buy-in
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Need 100% backing from Management
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: So far no lessons learnt, currently no change in direction.

Source row 34: General to other Projects: Original FEED Cost Estimate did not give a real estimate of costs and missed numerous large costs

#: 1
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation II
Risk Discipline: Finance
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-03-23
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Original FEED Cost Estimate did not give a real estimate of costs and missed numerous large costs
Consequences / Impact: Inaccurate Cost Estimate can give false appraisal and wrong upper management decisions can be made with massive negative cost impacts. More realist Level 5 Cost Estimate for Surface Facilities has been calculated.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 8 months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Conceptual Phase 2
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 2
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: TTE Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Better Quality of Cost Control overview from client is required when dealing with Contractor Estimates
Risk Actions Description: Inaccurate calculations can give Upper Management wrong information and make a massive negative cost impact to the Project
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Contractor Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 2
Action Due Date: 2025-11-20
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: To be discussed with Project Management Team once budget has been approved.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Making people aware whilst reviewing all options available for the Production of Water

Source row 35: General to other Projects: Lack of Team during the various Phases to drive the Project on.

#: 2
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation II
Risk Discipline: PMT
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-03-23
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Lack of Team during the various Phases to drive the Project on.
Consequences / Impact: Can't move the project on at a sufficient rate without a Team. If the Project project requires drive then a team needs forming far earlier.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Conceptual Phase 2
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 2
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Onboard team with correct skill sets.
Risk Actions Description: No team no progress
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 2
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: To be discussed with management ASAP. 03/24/24
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to onboard team and if required, have them work remotely to prevent delays.

Source row 36: General to other Projects: Security Issues, Regional Instability. Dynamic Security Risk - during Construction e.g. Movement of Personnel and Equipment from the Port to Site

#: 3
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 5. Political
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation II
Risk Discipline: Security
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-03-23
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Security Issues, Regional Instability. Dynamic Security Risk - during Construction e.g. Movement of Personnel and Equipment from the Port to Site
Consequences / Impact: Loss of life and loss of equipment is a high possibility both on site and within hotel facility. Due impart to historical instabilities and a divided country.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 years
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Conceptual Phase 2
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 2
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 4
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 4
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -16
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: The situation has affected Libya for several years and still volitile due to external forces beyond the control of Libyan people. Keep people alert with an exit statergy is always paramount. Expat need to understand what measures are being reviewed and weekly up-date needs issuing even if no change.
Risk Actions Description: This is about limiting risk to individuals and equipment has little to no chance of protection if similar was to happen. Always need to stay vigilant at all times.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: L
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Construction Contractor to develop security protocols. NOC to consider putting a security contract in place to manage the risk.. Need security up-dates on a regular basis and individual security plan and safest plan performed. Review on housing, transportation and exit stratergy required. 03/24/24
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to be more precise with available information and news letter sent on regualr basis.

Source row 37: Project: Payments to FIAL in LYD Portion - Delay

#: 4
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation II
Risk Discipline: Construction
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-01
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Payments to FIAL in LYD Portion - Delay
Consequences / Impact: FIAL sent reminder on Nov 27th - Finance Department was requested by PMT to expedite payment on Nov 30th.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Conceptual Phase 2
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 2
Exposure End Date: End of Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Upper Management release funding ASAP to allow FIAL to operate under no financial constraints imposed by Client
Risk Actions Description: FIAL unable / finding it difficult to pay workers and service providers the funds owing to them and a high risk of losing credit and men
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Upper Management Finance Department
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 4
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: No action to date, need to discuss with upper management a Plan of Action to prevent from occuring.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Pay Companies on time when Client are owing money to Contractors to prevent site and office distrust of Client

Source row 38: Project Haven't seen a Criticality Procedure used on the Project, normally formalised during the FEED, but salient points can still be used to calculate Risks & Criticality. Unfortunately, there is no grading of After Sales or delays in Material Procurement which would be Critical Rating High for all material issues.

#: 5
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation II
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project Haven't seen a Criticality Procedure used on the Project, normally formalised during the FEED, but salient points can still be used to calculate Risks & Criticality. Unfortunately, there is no grading of After Sales or delays in Material Procurement which would be Critical Rating High for all material issues.
Consequences / Impact: Not understanding or even reviewing the Criticality rating of each piece of equipment gives a false appraisal of the Project Status and can have a massive impact of the Project Completion Date
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Conceptual Phase 2
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 2
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Use the newly written procedure for working out Criticality and having approved by management and implemented on all Projects
Risk Actions Description: Follow correct matrix and ensure all aspects of the Project Criticality are reviewed and approved before entering next Phase of the project
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: To be discussed during Upper Project Management Team once FEED has been approved for funding.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to be more robust during review of information and better Communication with PMT.

Source row 39: Project TDE are a Fabrication Company not a deliverer of High Spec Equipment: Ensure that main contractor has capabilities and experience in conducting work and not just used as a hub for numerous 3rd Party Companies.

#: 6
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation II
Risk Discipline: Client Management Committee
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project TDE are a Fabrication Company not a deliverer of High Spec Equipment: Ensure that main contractor has capabilities and experience in conducting work and not just used as a hub for numerous 3rd Party Companies.
Consequences / Impact: When Main Contractor does not have the In-House skill sets to accomplish contracted work, then there is a grave chance that the quality of work completed is lacking quality
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Conceptual Phase 2
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 2
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 2
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 4
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -21
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Client Management need to ensure better protocols are in place in preventing substandard Companies bidding for work that they have little knowledge of
Risk Actions Description: Client management have to be made more accountable for the issuing of Contracts to substandard Contractors
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 1
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: To be discussed during Upper Project Management Team once budget has been approved.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to be more dilligent during the issue of contracts even if time is an issue.

Source row 40: Project Risk of using inadequate Capacity or Capability Contractors resulting substandard Equipment, Performance, Quality Issues impacting Project Execution, impacting the overall Project Success.

#: 7
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation II
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: SA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project Risk of using inadequate Capacity or Capability Contractors resulting substandard Equipment, Performance, Quality Issues impacting Project Execution, impacting the overall Project Success.
Consequences / Impact: If choosing the incorrect Contractor or Vendor then the Project is guaranteed to fail
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Conceptual Phase 2
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 2
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 2
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 4
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -21
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Conduct a thorough Risk Evaluation by 3rd Parties of potential Contractors' Capabilities, Experience and Resources. Implement a rigorous Contractor Pre-Qualification process. Establish clear Performance Criteria and Quality Control Measures. Regularly monitor contractor performance and intervene promptly to address any issues.
Risk Actions Description: Do not use own Company personnel to evaluate the prospective Companies, out side professionals only
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 2
Action Due Date: Phase 2
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 1
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: 3rd Party to resolve difficulty in deciding correct Contractor Vendor
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Use expert help in deciding who would be the best company to perform work for Client

Source row 41: General to other Projects: Low quality of Project Management assistance for PMT in preperation of Project Documentation and total lack of professional understanding of Large Projects

#: 8
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation II
Risk Discipline: PMO
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-04-07
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Low quality of Project Management assistance for PMT in preperation of Project Documentation and total lack of professional understanding of Large Projects
Consequences / Impact: PMO Brought in to aid PMT in preparation and execution of projects, a lack of of basic fundamentals and poor preparation have left all the projects within Major Projects Department totally unprepared, with extremely poor documentation and a basic lack of understanding of how a Project Operates and the external factors that can severly impact a Project
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Conceptual Phase 2
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 1
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: MPD Management
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Replace current PMO Team with a reputable Project Management Consultant Company (PMC) personnel who are able to assist and Teach Client Project Members
Risk Actions Description: Complete breakdown of projects and allowing poor performance to continue unchecked.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: MPD Management
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 9
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: To be discussed with MPD Management Team for changes to PMO Team to be approved and replacements starting immediately.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: MPD Department Management to react quicker when something is obviously not working. Replace personnel one for one as opportunity arises.

Source row 42: General to other Projects: Low quality of PMO approved, signed off Procedures and Produced Documentation.

#: 9
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation II
Risk Discipline: PMO
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-04-07
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Low quality of PMO approved, signed off Procedures and Produced Documentation.
Consequences / Impact: Having such low quality Procedures and Documentation produced by PMO will have a massive impact of the smooth flow of the Project and the critical sequencing of a Project.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Conceptual Phase 2
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 1
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: MPD Management
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Replace current PMO Team with a reputable Project Management Consultant Company (PMC) personnel who are able to assist and Teach Client Project Members
Risk Actions Description: Complete breakdown of in the Quality of Project Documentation with no visible checks and balances on the quality of work issued by PMO.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: MPD Management
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 9
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: To be discussed with MPD Management Team for changes to PMO Team to be approved and replacements starting immediately.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: MPD Department Management to react quicker when something is obviously not working. Replace personnel one for one as opportunity arises.

Source row 43: General to other Projects: Lack of using Client Company Standards during Phase 2 to 7. PMT members should be fully conversant with Client Standards so there is a lack of ambiguity and Contractors closer adherance to Company Standards

#: 10
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Initiation II
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-27
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Lack of using Client Company Standards during Phase 2 to 7. PMT members should be fully conversant with Client Standards so there is a lack of ambiguity and Contractors closer adherance to Company Standards
Consequences / Impact: Equipment is designed incorrectly or fitted incorrectly compared to Client Standards which increases none conformity and rework which impacts the cost of the Project and an adverse schedule end date.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Conceptual Phase 2
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 2
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: MPD Management
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 2
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -18
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure MPD start a Programme with Engineering to ensure all Client Standards are fully updated and incorporating both Totals and ConocoPhillips Standards currently used into Client Framework
Risk Actions Description: Nobody within MPD has a full comprehension of Client Standards that can aid work. MPD pay for a repeat of Client Standards to be produced during a FEED to a contractor when Client Standards should be issued as part of the tendering package for FEED to ensure Contractors stay within the boundaries od Client Standards
Action By: Client
Action Owner: MPD Management
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 9
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: To be discussed with MPD Management Team for changes to using Client Standards No new standards from Engineering for 20 year.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure a grassroot look at current documentation required

Source row 44: General to other Projects: Invitation to Tender (ITT) for Front End Engineering Design (FEED) Bidding Process: Contractors negotiations for completion of FEED. Tendering and Tendering Process Risk

#: 1
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: GATE II
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Invitation to Tender (ITT) for Front End Engineering Design (FEED) Bidding Process: Contractors negotiations for completion of FEED. Tendering and Tendering Process Risk
Consequences / Impact: Contractors should not be able to bid for FEED and EPC Phases and should remain separate to provide better results. Information provided by Client is incomplete and does not fully indictate a comprehensive list of documents and contents, A lot of documents should be provided by Client not the contractor.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: GATE FEED ITT
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: GATE FEED ITT & FEED Phase 3
Exposure Start Date: Start of ITT for FEED
Exposure End Date: End of ITT
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure all Philosophies, SoW, BoD, General Specifications, Execution Plans, Procedures, R&R, Org Charts, NOC General Forms, Risk Management Documents are all Completed prior to FEED Starting
Risk Actions Description: When all documentation is left to the Contractor the price will increase and the work will be substandard (majority of time). A clear target for quality will not be achieved. NOC need to lead proceedings not be led. More completed documents at ITT then less questions and higher quality services provided from Contractor.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Prior to Phase 3
Action Due Date: GATE Pre-FEED ITT & Phase 2
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Start to review all documents without budget approval and ensure all documents are fully reviewed and approved
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure management buy-in and ensure a strong team can support the PMT

Source row 45: General to other Projects: Late submission of FEED Bidders proposals

#: 2
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: GATE II
Risk Discipline: MPD Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Late submission of FEED Bidders proposals
Consequences / Impact: Need to keep a strict timeframe on Bidding so not one company can be preceived to take an advantage. 24 Hour open service will be available to answer all question 2 weeks prior to closing bids. But the shut off will be the shut off with no additional time allowed
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: GATE FEED ITT
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: GATE FEED ITT & FEED Phase 3
Exposure Start Date: Start of ITT for FEED
Exposure End Date: End of ITT
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure all Companies bidding are fully made aware that the window for bids will only be open for specific time frame with no extenuating circumstances
Risk Actions Description: Bidder can get nervous and pull out if they feel another company has an advantage
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Prior to Phase 3
Action Due Date: GATE Pre-FEED ITT & Phase 2
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Before Issuing ITT ensure all theinformation has been reviewed and removal of ambiguity
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Keep a strict time frame and no excusses

Source row 46: Project: The issuance and transfer of Bank Guarantee (BG) for Invoice #15 by TDE, with the soft copy transferred from BACB to Client, introduces potential risks that may impact the timely release of payment to TDE. The absence of the original BG poses a concern, as it could lead to payment delays and financial complications.

#: 1
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 3. Commercial
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Client Management Committee
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-16
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: The issuance and transfer of Bank Guarantee (BG) for Invoice #15 by TDE, with the soft copy transferred from BACB to Client, introduces potential risks that may impact the timely release of payment to TDE. The absence of the original BG poses a concern, as it could lead to payment delays and financial complications.
Consequences / Impact: Delay in all aspects of both Design work and Construction with equipment incorrectly stored at Sub-Zero climates
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Weeks
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 3 to 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: To mitigate the potential risks associated with the Bank Guarantee (BG) issuance and transfer process, it is crucial to establish a comprehensive approach: Documentation Verification: including the original BG and related transfer documents, are reviewed and validated for accuracy and completeness. Escalation Protocols: Establish clear protocols for escalating any discrepancies, delays, or issues related to the BG transfer, consider implementing a contingency plan for releasing payment to TDE. This plan could involve conditional approvals or alternative methods of securing the payment. Legal Review: Involve legal experts to ensure that the terms and conditions of the BG, as well as the transfer process, comply with relevant laws and regulations.
Risk Actions Description: Ensure Contingency Funding is available prior to commencing any work activities
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: M
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Communication: Maintain open and transparent communication between all parties involved, including TDE, BACB, and Client. Confirm the status of the BG transfer and any potential issues promptly.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better understanding and training of Project Team in preventing substandard information being accepted.

Source row 47: General to other Projects: Substandard Route Survey Report: No description of what convoys escort are required, and associated costs. No List of Band Port Entry goods

#: 2
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Logistics
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-16
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Substandard Route Survey Report: No description of what convoys escort are required, and associated costs. No List of Band Port Entry goods
Consequences / Impact: Without knowing the full cost impact then all costs on transportation will be increased
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Weeks
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Escalation in costs, delay on equipment transportation and maybe problems with local government on moving equipment from port to site
Risk Actions Description: Ensure all costs have been captured in relationship to convoy escort including time scale and when paperwork should be submitted and collect all information on cost
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: M
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: June 2026: Project should have been given financial clearance and a further study can be immediately carried out with costs of escorting equipment as a financial known
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better understanding and training of Project Team in preventing substandard information being accepted.

Source row 48: General to other Projects: Missing Critical Equipment from report

#: 3
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Logistics
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-16
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Missing Critical Equipment from report
Consequences / Impact: Incorrect Transport and wrong surveys carried out if not all equipment has been correctly accounted for
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Without a correct equipment summary unable to write a full comprehensive description of route
Risk Actions Description: Ensure all culverts, Overhead lines, bridges and ctown movement is recorded
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: M
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: June 2026: Project should have been given financial clearance and a further equipment list can be made including: Finger Type Slug Catcher, Recovered Condensate Heater, Gas/Gas and Gas/Liquid Exchangers, 240K BBL crude oil storage tank, Flare stack and Fired Heaters
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better understanding and training of Project Team in preventing substandard information being accepted.

Source row 49: General to other Projects: Equipment List should be categorised by system numbering within Survey Report

#: 4
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Logistics
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-16
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Equipment List should be categorised by system numbering within Survey Report
Consequences / Impact: Not being ciorrectly prepared, equipment cannot be correctly identified as shown in above "Missing Critical Equipment"
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Weeks
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Without a correct equipment list linked to System Number unable to write a full comprehensive equipment list
Risk Actions Description: Using System Numbering will aid in correct manifests for equipment
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: M
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: June 2026: Project should have been given financial clearance, full comrehensive list using System Number can be collated for report
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better understanding and training of Project Team in preventing substandard information being accepted.

Source row 50: General to other Projects: To prevent confusion all transport widths, heights, lengths should be metric and weights in metric tons.

#: 5
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Logistics
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-16
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: To prevent confusion all transport widths, heights, lengths should be metric and weights in metric tons.
Consequences / Impact: Incorrect weights, and sizes for equipment may result in inadequate routes and correct transportation, resulting in an increase in Risk of Damage
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Weeks
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 2
Impact Score (score 1-5): 2
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 4
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -3
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Standardising sizes and weight into metric measurements will reduce mistakes on manifesto
Risk Actions Description: Ensure all weights and dimensions are in Metric: Tonnes and Metres
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: M
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: June 2026: Project should have been given financial clearance, new transport plan will only use Metres and Tonnes
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Stick to the more advanced and commonly used Metric System to avoid any confusion

Source row 51: General to other Projects: Unknown what the largest crane available or if it could be taken to Tripoli Port to asist unloading. But current cranes available in port are only 100T and 2 x 60T so would need external company for lifting. Risk Statement: There is a risk associated with long lead items weighing over 70 tons

#: 6
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Logistics
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-16
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Unknown what the largest crane available or if it could be taken to Tripoli Port to asist unloading. But current cranes available in port are only 100T and 2 x 60T so would need external company for lifting. Risk Statement: There is a risk associated with long lead items weighing over 70 tons
Consequences / Impact: Current Logistic Report does not cover crane availability which is critical for unloading at port
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: More detailed information on heavy Lift capabilities in Ports is required and mention in Logistics Report. Monitor Crane Capacity and Adjust as Needed: Continuously monitor the available crane capacity at the port throughout the project timeline. If any concerns arise regarding the capacity being insufficient, take proactive measures to address the issue promptly. This may involve adjusting the schedule, securing additional crane resources, or exploring alternative loading options.
Risk Actions Description: Enquire using 3rd Party what equipment is available for heavy lifts from ship to shore. Delays or disruptions continue in case the crane capacity remains insufficient despite the measures proposed. This may involve exploring alternative transportation methods, utilizing nearby ports with higher crane capacities, or revising the project timeline
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: June 2026: Project should have been given financial clearance, full comrehensive list of crane availability made clear to client. Explore Off-Site Pre-Assembly: Investigate the feasibility of pre-assembling or pre-fabricating the long lead items off-site, closer to the port or project site. This approach can reduce the reliance on the port's crane capacity by transporting smaller components that can be assembled on-site.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better understanding and training of Project Team in preventing substandard information being accepted.

Source row 52: General to other Projects: No loading of bridges described or culvert max loading mentioned in Logistics Reporting

#: 7
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Logistics
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-16
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: No loading of bridges described or culvert max loading mentioned in Logistics Reporting
Consequences / Impact: Current Logistic Report does not cover critical Max Loading of any Bridge or Culvet. May not be able to use bridges and damage culvert if not known
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: More detailed information on Bridge and Culvert Capacity for planned Route within in Logistics Report
Risk Actions Description: Enquire using 3rd Party the Maximum Bridge weight and culvert strength.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: June 2026: Project should have been given financial clearance, full comrehensive list of Maximum Bridge weight and culvert strength made clear in new report.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better understanding and training of Project Team in preventing substandard information being accepted.

Source row 53: General to other Projects: Insufficient details about alternative routes or explanation of what would need to be done to navigate past a difficult area mentioned in the Logistics plan

#: 8
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Logistics
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-16
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Insufficient details about alternative routes or explanation of what would need to be done to navigate past a difficult area mentioned in the Logistics plan
Consequences / Impact: Current Logistic Report does not cover critical alternative route information needed to safely transport equipment to site. Equipment may be damaged or lost if not correctly planned.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: More detailed information on alternative Route maps to be mentioned in Logistics Report
Risk Actions Description: Enquire using 3rd Party what equipment is available for heavy lifts from ship to shore
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: June 2026: Project should have been given financial clearance, full comrehensive alternative route map made available in the Report
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better understanding and training of Project Team in preventing substandard information being accepted.

Source row 54: General to other Projects: Unknown Transport Equipment availability in Libya: No quantities given, any possibility of getting SPMT Transport & No understanding of max height of low beds

#: 9
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Logistics
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-16
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Unknown Transport Equipment availability in Libya: No quantities given, any possibility of getting SPMT Transport & No understanding of max height of low beds
Consequences / Impact: May not have the correct transport availabe in the Country to transport all necessary equipment to site.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: More detailed information on Transport Equipment available in Country to be incoporated within the Logistics Report
Risk Actions Description: Enquire using 3rd Party what Heavy / Wide Special Transport equipment is available in Country
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: June 2026: Project should have been given financial clearance, full comrehensive Heavy Transport Equipment currently available to be described in the Logistics Report
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better understanding and training of Project Team in preventing substandard information being accepted.

Source row 55: General to other Projects: No Harbour Costs listed in the Logistics Report

#: 10
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-16
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: No Harbour Costs listed in the Logistics Report
Consequences / Impact: Highly inaccurate cost estimate and may severly impact the Project financials
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: More accurate cost estimate for Port Taxes and Access to be described Logistics Report
Risk Actions Description: Calculate Harbour Costs to be paid on receiving equipment as part of Logistics Report
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: June 2026: Project should have been given financial clearance, full comrehensive cost estimate to be calculated prior to receiving equipment.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better understanding and training of Project Team in preventing substandard information being accepted.

Source row 56: General to other Projects: No allowance, contingency or description of making temporary road to avoid town centres, tree OH lines, sharp bends etc within the Logistic Report

#: 11
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-16
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: No allowance, contingency or description of making temporary road to avoid town centres, tree OH lines, sharp bends etc within the Logistic Report
Consequences / Impact: No contingency allotted in the financial management of the project in evaluating true cost of making temporary roads from Port to Project Site
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: A realistic cost estimate for temporary road systems to be calculated and placed in the Logistics Report
Risk Actions Description: Calculate Harbour Costs to be paid on receiving equipment as part of Logistics Report
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: June 2026: Project should have been given financial clearance, full comrehensive cost estimate to be calculated for temporary roads style, width, length, by-pass.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better understanding and training of Project Team in preventing substandard information being accepted.

Source row 57: General to other Projects: No Regular pre-organised weekly meetings with other departments within the organisation including business partners and taking MoM with action items and issued through document control.

#: 12
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: MPD Manager
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-03-23
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: No Regular pre-organised weekly meetings with other departments within the organisation including business partners and taking MoM with action items and issued through document control.
Consequences / Impact: Lack of regular meetings and action items raised in recorded MoM, lack of clear and concise communication will delay the project and increase costs. Accountability required of all personnel involved in supplying the project with accurate information in a timely manner.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 2
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 6
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -5
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Have more departmental meetings involving all stake holders for everyone to understand current status of a project and what the further problems are.
Risk Actions Description: Agree with management on setting up additional meeting with departments, partners and contractor as and when required.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 1
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: To be discussed during meeting with upper management and project team. 3/24/24
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better communication will result in better understanding of the project. Departments are silos at present.

Source row 58: General to other Projects: TQs during FEED (post) minimal, very few TQs raised. Such a Technical Project with so few TQs raised.

#: 13
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Project Management
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-03-23
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: TQs during FEED (post) minimal, very few TQs raised. Such a Technical Project with so few TQs raised.
Consequences / Impact: The level/quantity of TQs and the closing out of incompleted TQs is alarming. A lot closer scrutiny and due diligence is required to complete TQs correctly. This will be a direct impact on costs and schedule.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Contractors, Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 12
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Future FEEDs will capture more TQ and reduce delays whilst building a more robust system so delays can't be passed on to next stage can't occur without impact to Contractor and reduced payments
Risk Actions Description: Write a basic acceptance criteria into the contractor contract that prevents payment without adequate closure of work.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: To be discussed during meeting with upper management and Project Teams. 3/24/24
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to alter current contract and ensure all costs are accounted for in the project using a level 3 cost estimate, with all level two planning and drawing correctly completed and NOT left to next phase. An agreed list of admissions to be listed and signed off.

Source row 59: Project: The FEED highlighted the design of the tie-in locations has been undertaken remotely without onsite surveys and no follow-up with Engineering who where to complete Tie-Ins long before the Project started, no follw-up to ensure work was continuing. Direct impact to the schedule and cost to Project

#: 14
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Engineering
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-03-23
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: The FEED highlighted the design of the tie-in locations has been undertaken remotely without onsite surveys and no follow-up with Engineering who where to complete Tie-Ins long before the Project started, no follw-up to ensure work was continuing. Direct impact to the schedule and cost to Project
Consequences / Impact: Onsite survey needs to be carried-out to pinpoint exact location and therefore highlight issues that will need addressing and to understand the cost impact, materials required to tie-in location and ensure all impacted parties are aware of what is being proposed and reduce risk of delay.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client Engineering
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Once agreeing about work scope with Client Engineering the PM should have followed up all outstanding issues with Client Engineering who where the owners of Tie-In to allow for accurate costing and involve all stake holders and confirm so no future ambiguity and preliminary drawings can be completed and work completed before Upgrade to Faregh started.
Risk Actions Description: All round better communication and working relationship with between Client Departments
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: To be discussed during meeting with upper management and project team, requesting better interdepartmental unity (better cross culture) 3/24/24
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Additional planning preparation from Project PMT would have captured Tie-In ambiguity and would have contacted Engineering if captured in the Risk Register.

Source row 60: Project: Due to the Structure of the Project Contract previous Stages not sufficiently closed out correctly which will have a direct impact on schedule delays and cost. Contractor pushing important FEED items into both Detailed Design and EPC phases when FEED is the correct place to complete work.

#: 15
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Legal
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-03-23
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Due to the Structure of the Project Contract previous Stages not sufficiently closed out correctly which will have a direct impact on schedule delays and cost. Contractor pushing important FEED items into both Detailed Design and EPC phases when FEED is the correct place to complete work.
Consequences / Impact: It has been made obvious that many parts of the FEED where not adequately completed (ran out of time was excuse) and have now been forwarded onwards to items into both Detailed Design and EPC phases which are the incorrect forums to conduct this work. Everything is being shunted to the right which will massively increasing costs and impacting the project schedule.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 18 months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Contractors, Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 2
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 4
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -21
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Lack of accurate costs and lack of accurate planning, too many descisions being delayed and placed in next stages,
Risk Actions Description: Need more vigorous checks prior to accepting sign off and payment. Make payment more performance based. Not to quick to agree and sign off.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: To be discussed with upper management team on how the Team should be performing and how acceptance criteria should be changed. 3/24/24
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Stricter acceptance criteria will aid to better and more successful projects.

Source row 61: Project: Transmittals need to be linked to all related information for ease of tracking and correct filing of Engineering Data has to be easily tracable within the Project Files and not spread in several locations and difficult to trace or use

#: 16
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Documentation
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-05-20
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Transmittals need to be linked to all related information for ease of tracking and correct filing of Engineering Data has to be easily tracable within the Project Files and not spread in several locations and difficult to trace or use
Consequences / Impact: If the information is not easiliy accessable and in one dedicated location it becomes impossible to track if all the necessary information in preparation for Project Execution is sufficient or correct massively impacting the Project Completion
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 1 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 1
Exposure End Date: Project Completion
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Entire PM Team to full comply with strict protocols in the use of data Collection SharePoint. It is the responsibility of the entire Team to keep all the information for each discipline up-dated and correct with the DCC in full Control of the System. .
Risk Actions Description: Project Management and DCC to regularly review SharePoint and check if it is fit for purpose
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Monthly review of System to be implemented by DCC SharePoint Owner starting. 05/20/25
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure all Project Teams within MPD are aware of problems encounted by another Project Team that heavily impacted the Project.

Source row 62: Project TDE Facility: Lack of Quality Inspection during the Vendor Build and Testing at Vendor facility

#: 17
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project TDE Facility: Lack of Quality Inspection during the Vendor Build and Testing at Vendor facility
Consequences / Impact: Due to the Lack of factory testing and the lack of physical on site Quality Inspection prior to equipment beginning shipped from factory without satisfactory testing has a high probability of failure on site
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 & 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure Client personnel with Quality Inspection experience are used for inspection purposes for all critical build inspection
Risk Actions Description: Using Client Direct Employees will ensure a higher quality of inspection will be carried out, especially when same emplyees will be used in the field during Construction Phase
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Prior to Contract being signed with Main Contractor the Quality team to review all necessary requirements for inspection
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Shared Experience from previous Project who didn't have the correct personnel in place.

Source row 63: During the Project FEED no Client Commissioning Manager present for Commissioning Preparation Activities that are required, therefore virtually every document not correctly written by Contractor due to lack of Commissioning experience or awareness. All left to Construction Contractor to formulate at additional cost to Client

#: 18
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: During the Project FEED no Client Commissioning Manager present for Commissioning Preparation Activities that are required, therefore virtually every document not correctly written by Contractor due to lack of Commissioning experience or awareness. All left to Construction Contractor to formulate at additional cost to Client
Consequences / Impact: Commissioning Documentation not being reviewed or commented on which include: Prepare Execution Philosophy covering Commissioning, Maintenance, Operations and Training Disciplines (COMOP), Commissioning and Start-Up and Operations & Maintenance Manual Prepared by Contractor without a qualified person writing it, Commissioning Interface Management and Coordination with Construction, Preservation Procedures and Preservation Management Strategy with acceptance criteria, Initial Testing Procedures: Leak Testing including Gross Air Leak Testing & Nitrogen/Helium Leak Testing, Performance Testing
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 2 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure Client Commissioning Manager avaibale during the FEED
Risk Actions Description: Having no Client Commissioning Manager prevents quality checks on a multitude of critical stages of the FEED
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Once the Project recieves financial approval then the Team will be increased and will include a Commissioning Manager.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure the correct personnel in place during FEED and onwards.

Source row 64: Project PMT Witnessed Project delays due to inadequate Planning / Scheduling not built by FEED / Detailed Design Contractor TDE and also from the Contractor during Construction.

#: 19
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Planning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project PMT Witnessed Project delays due to inadequate Planning / Scheduling not built by FEED / Detailed Design Contractor TDE and also from the Contractor during Construction.
Consequences / Impact: Planning Documentation not Completed included: Build P6 Level 3 Master EPC Construction & Commissioning Schedule with Skyline and Sequencing Systems Sub-System Critical Path including Successors-Predecessors, Construction Schedule for Trenching, Excavation, Filling and Compaction Works, Bar Bending & Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) Schedule, Priority Cable Routing Schedule Electrical & Fibre Optic required for Construction Installation, Vendor Schedule consult with Commissioning Team, Vessel Closure & Joint Inspection, Provisional Factory Acceptance Testing Schedule Procedure, Activity Duration of each discipline and produce a Manpower Curve, Loading Histograms including Performance Factor for Direct Manpower (discipline Input).
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure Planning Covers all the activities including Staffing and Manning Plan for the Site Management and Supervision (Indirect Manning)
Risk Actions Description: If its not planned it cannot be assessed and cannot be accounted for and introduced into any calculations.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Once the Project recieves financial approval then the Team will be increased and will include a Qualified Senior Planner with Mega Project experience (Expat)
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure the correct personnel in place during FEED and onwards.

Source row 65: Project PMT have had to deal with incomplete FEED and Poor Quality FEED Deliverable Documentation which has impacted the Construction Phase of the Project.

#: 20
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: FEED MPD PMT
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project PMT have had to deal with incomplete FEED and Poor Quality FEED Deliverable Documentation which has impacted the Construction Phase of the Project.
Consequences / Impact: FEED Documentation not Completed. Documentation prepared for FEED Phase, signed off at FEED Phase and NOT prepared for next Phases. Incomplete equipment lists, documentation missing, documentation reliant upon FEED Contractor involvement once in EPC Phase 4 due to tables and calculations not handed to client at FEED Stage. Very low quality of documentation at handover.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Larger more qualified PMT during the FEED to be able to check all the Procedures and Documentation produced by the FEED Contractor is correct.
Risk Actions Description: Virtually every document has to be reviewed, revised, rewritten before advancing to the next Phase of the Project. Extra time and extra money wasted in checking documentation
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End Phase 9
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Once the Project recieves financial approval then the Team will be increased and will include a Qualified Senior leads with Mega Project experience (Expat)
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure the correct personnel in place during FEED and onwards.

Source row 66: General to other Projects: Battery Limits not locked and agreed with late Modifications that change scopes of work for 3rd Parties, Investors and Authorities

#: 21
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Process
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Battery Limits not locked and agreed with late Modifications that change scopes of work for 3rd Parties, Investors and Authorities
Consequences / Impact: Need to ensure all Battery Limits are fixed during FEED Phase 3 and not changed during the Project. Changes deliver ambiguity and additional cost and redesign work with new drawings reflecting changes and add uneccessary cost and time to a Project.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 2
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 6
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -5
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Write into Contract no change to Battery Limits, ensure battery Limits are at a fixed point (Valves, Intersections etc) and not a "Central Location" which would increase ambiguity
Risk Actions Description: Allow changes to Battery Limits will increase costs and impact time to complete work due to additional negociations and re-writing of drawings
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Once next FEED has been completed ensure Battery Limits are fixed, even with statement in Procedures as back up
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure Battery Limits are at a fixed point

Source row 67: General to other Projects: Lack of Long Lead Item Information from FEED

#: 22
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Logistics
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Lack of Long Lead Item Information from FEED
Consequences / Impact: If a potential Vendor has not been requested for delivery date then the Long Lead Item may impact the Project Schedule due to extended delivery date. Alternative may be to costly but the correct time frame.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 16
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -15
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure all potential Vendors supply the delivery time of specialist equipment
Risk Actions Description: Additional Lead time can impact the Start-Up of the plant and adverse effect on Commissioning
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: When reviewing the close out of FEED ensure the delivery dates for specialist equipment are known, also find out if the Company id still solvent.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure information is logged in FEED Close Out document

Source row 68: General to other Projects: Lack of Documentation not Produced during FEED but later found to be required during EPC (Detailed Design)

#: 23
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: FEED MPD PMT
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Lack of Documentation not Produced during FEED but later found to be required during EPC (Detailed Design)
Consequences / Impact: Iintegration and Operation Readiness / Synergies Criteria not anticipated but required from FEED. Additional cost to Client due to FEED Contractor not supplying sufficinet supporting documentation. Creates delays in producing documentation and additional costs that were not envisaged
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 2
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 10
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -9
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Withhold some payments to FEED Provider untill Phase 7 Start-Up to ensure that all the necessary procedures have been / or can been completed after the FEED by the FEED Provider off site. No additional cost to Client
Risk Actions Description: If no money held back as assurance of correct documentation then documents will continued to be missed, re-worked and costing client twice for same work
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 7
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: When reviewing the close out of FEED ensure the delivery dates for specialist equipment are known, also find out if the Company id still solvent.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure Integration and Operation Readiness / Synergies Criteria completed during the FEED

Source row 69: Project: Operations demand of extra HMI - An out of Scope item. Final arrangement and quantities shall be confirmed during FEED and enhanced during detailed engineering; all equipment sizes shall be finalised based on VENDOR information received during the FEED

#: 24
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Process & Operations
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-04-20
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Operations demand of extra HMI - An out of Scope item. Final arrangement and quantities shall be confirmed during FEED and enhanced during detailed engineering; all equipment sizes shall be finalised based on VENDOR information received during the FEED
Consequences / Impact: Not completing critical information during the FEED or requesting interdepartmental feedback delaying final quantities till next stage and beyond, Required technical details for a further Two (2) HMI complete with necessary software and Licences. Procurement has been intitated, PO details and ETA to be known.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Weeks
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 2
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 6
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -5
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Do not allow FEED Contractor not to give essential information during the FEED Phase 3 process that has been financially approved and paid for. Contact Operations for feedback before finalising FEED.
Risk Actions Description: If the Task is not completed in the FEED Phase 3 Process Client will have to pay again for work already paid for but not completed and additional delays in purchasing further equipment.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Will discuss PMT expectations prior to starting FEED at Contractors facility. Will incorporate different Client Departments requests. But freeze process eventually.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Review of Previous FEEDs highlighted lack of quality documentation produced during last FEED. Not to be repeated. Closer scrutiny

Source row 70: General to other Projects: Vendor Package details including I/O to be completed during FEED and confirmed in Detail Design.

#: 25
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Instrumentation
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-04-20
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Vendor Package details including I/O to be completed during FEED and confirmed in Detail Design.
Consequences / Impact: Not completing critical information during the FEED and delaying till next stage and beyond, negatively impacts the issuing of the ITT for EPC.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 6
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 6
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Do not allow FEED Contractor not to give essential information during the FEED Phase 3 process that has been financially approved and paid for.
Risk Actions Description: If the Task is not completed in the FEED Phase 3 Process Client will have to pay again for work already paid for but not completed.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Will discuss PMT expectations prior to starting FEED at Contractors facility. When check work, if not completed Company will extract payment that would cover the value of the work.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Review of Previous FEEDs highlighted lack of quality documentation produced during last FEED. Not to be repeated. Closer scrutiny

Source row 71: General to other Projects: Junction boxes shall be added to the cable routing layouts during FEED and confirmed during detail design. Instrument locations shall be added to the cable routing layouts during FEED.

#: 26
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Electrical (Ex)
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-04-20
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Junction boxes shall be added to the cable routing layouts during FEED and confirmed during detail design. Instrument locations shall be added to the cable routing layouts during FEED.
Consequences / Impact: Not completing critical information during the FEED and delaying till next stage and beyond, negatively impacts the issuing of the ITT for EPC.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 2
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 10
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -9
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Do not allow FEED Contractor not to give essential information during the FEED Phase 3 process that has been financially approved and paid for.
Risk Actions Description: If the Task is not completed in the FEED Phase 3 Process Client will have to pay again for work already paid for but not completed.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Will discuss PMT expectations prior to starting FEED at Contractors facility. When check work, if not completed Company will extract payment that would cover the value of the work.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Review of Previous FEEDs highlighted lack of quality documentation produced during last FEED. Not to be repeated. Closer scrutiny

Source row 72: General to other Projects: Allocation of Instrument Tag Numbers to Instrument Hook-Up Drawings shall be carried out during FEED and reviewed during detailed design by a separate entity.

#: 27
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Instrumentation
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-04-20
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Allocation of Instrument Tag Numbers to Instrument Hook-Up Drawings shall be carried out during FEED and reviewed during detailed design by a separate entity.
Consequences / Impact: Not completing critical information during the FEED and delaying till next stage and beyond, negatively impacts the issuing of the ITT for EPC.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 2
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 10
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -9
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Do not allow FEED Contractor not to give essential information during the FEED Phase 3 process that has been financially approved and paid for.
Risk Actions Description: If the Task is not completed in the FEED Phase 3 Process Client will have to pay again for work already paid for but not completed.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Will discuss PMT expectations prior to starting FEED at Contractors facility. When check work, if not completed Company will extract payment that would cover the value of the work.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Review of Previous FEEDs highlighted lack of quality documentation produced during last FEED. Not to be repeated. Closer scrutiny

Source row 73: General to other Projects: Cable routing layouts, grounding layouts & lighting layouts need to be on all FEED drawing and reviewed against latest plot plans at EPC Phase 4.

#: 28
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Electrical
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-04-20
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Cable routing layouts, grounding layouts & lighting layouts need to be on all FEED drawing and reviewed against latest plot plans at EPC Phase 4.
Consequences / Impact: Not completing critical information during the FEED and delaying till next stage and beyond, negatively impacts the issuing of the ITT for EPC.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 2
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 10
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -9
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure existing plant loads are known prior to FEED to understand current plant limitations. 'Do not allow FEED Contractor not to give essential information during the FEED Phase 3 process that should be covered in scope of work.
Risk Actions Description: If the Task is not completed in the FEED Phase 3 Process Client will have to pay but have the work added to the critical path of work required.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Discuss PMT expectations prior to starting FEED at Contractors facility. When check work, if not completed to the satisfaction of client then payment withheld until complete.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Understanding the additional outputs of existing plant and working out if original plant can handle additional load

Source row 74: Project: The Instrument Air Compressor type and configuration should have already been decided during the FEED and not left to for EPC Phase 4. issued with Lead time and Cost now critical impact to the Project.

#: 29
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Engineering
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-04-20
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: The Instrument Air Compressor type and configuration should have already been decided during the FEED and not left to for EPC Phase 4. issued with Lead time and Cost now critical impact to the Project.
Consequences / Impact: Not completing critical information during the FEED and delaying till next stage and beyond, negatively impacts the issuing of the ITT for EPC. Also causes delays to Project Project.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Do not allow FEED Contractor not to give essential information during the FEED Phase 3 process.
Risk Actions Description: If the Task is not completed in the FEED Phase 3 Process Client will have to pay again for work already paid for but not completed.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Will discuss PMT expectations prior to starting FEED at Contractors facility. When check work, if not completed Company will extract payment that would cover the value of the work.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Review of Previous FEEDs highlighted lack of quality documentation produced during last FEED. Not to be repeated. Closer scrutiny

Source row 75: General to other Projects: Not Considering costs for Security Fencing (Secure Compounds) and Gates possible Construction Road access

#: 30
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-04-20
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Not Considering costs for Security Fencing (Secure Compounds) and Gates possible Construction Road access
Consequences / Impact: Not completing the information during the FEED Phase 3 will impact the cost estimate and the wrong cost estimate will have to be issued
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 2
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 10
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -9
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Do not allow FEED Contractor not to give essential information during the FEED Phase 3 process that has been financially approved and paid for.
Risk Actions Description: If the Task is not completed in the FEED Phase 3 Process Client will have to pay again for work already paid for but not completed.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Will discuss PMT expectations prior to starting FEED at Contractors facility. When checking work, if not completed Company will extract payment that would cover the value of the work.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Review of Previous FEEDs highlighted lack of quality documentation produced during last FEED. Not to be repeated. Closer scrutiny

Source row 76: General to other Projects: The FEED contractor avoided a lot of work citing key information was required from NOC (but could have been clarified quickly and effectively). NOC was used as an excuse not to complete key parts of the FEED.

#: 31
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: FEED MPD PMT
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-04-20
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: The FEED contractor avoided a lot of work citing key information was required from NOC (but could have been clarified quickly and effectively). NOC was used as an excuse not to complete key parts of the FEED.
Consequences / Impact: Client to pay twice for same work being Produced. Client not being proactive enough during the FEED to prevent FEED Contractor from making statement blaming Company for delay
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure all the necessary information required by FEED Contractor is available before the start of FEED Phase 3
Risk Actions Description: Severe impact and massive delays in advancing the Project through the Phases due to lack of Quality information received in FEED . Threat to the Schedule and financial increases of the Project CAPEX / EPC Cost Overruns
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 2
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Will discuss PMT expectations prior to starting FEED at Contractors facility. If FEED Contractor states delay in Producing Information Company will extract payment that would cover the value of the work.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Review of Previous FEEDs highlighted lack of quality documentation produced during last FEED. Not to be repeated. Closer scrutiny

Source row 77: General to other Projects: During the FEED the FEED Contractor did not complete a comprehensive Cost Time report for all the individual trades, Direct & Indirect Labour Cost and Calculate the Performance Factor which would have allowed a provisional Manpower Curve to be built which could be issued for EPC ITT

#: 32
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Planning
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-04-20
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: During the FEED the FEED Contractor did not complete a comprehensive Cost Time report for all the individual trades, Direct & Indirect Labour Cost and Calculate the Performance Factor which would have allowed a provisional Manpower Curve to be built which could be issued for EPC ITT
Consequences / Impact: Ensuring the CTR and manpoer Curves are completed which inturn will reduced and cost of Projects are due to lack of Project Ambiguity
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: FEED Phase 3
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 3
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Do not allow FEED Contractor not to give essential information during the FEED Phase 3 process that has been financially approved and paid for.
Risk Actions Description: If the Task is not completed in the FEED Phase 3 Process Client will have to pay again for work already paid for but not completed.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Will discuss PMT expectations prior to starting FEED at Contractors facility. When check work, if not completed Company will extract payment that would cover the value of the work.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Review of Previous FEEDs highlighted lack of quality documentation produced during last FEED. Not to be repeated. Closer scrutiny

Source row 78: General to other Projects: Company Fund Request delays for Invitation to Tender (ITT) for EPC Bidding Process: Vendors, Contractors and Sub-Contractors left waiting to negotiate

#: 1
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: GATE III
Risk Discipline: Client Management Committee
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Company Fund Request delays for Invitation to Tender (ITT) for EPC Bidding Process: Vendors, Contractors and Sub-Contractors left waiting to negotiate
Consequences / Impact: Information provided by Client PMT found to be incomplete and not to the satisfaction of Company Fund Request Financial approval.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: GATE EPC ITT
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: GATE FEED ITT & FEED Phase 3
Exposure Start Date: Start of FEED ITT
Exposure End Date: FEED ITT Gate
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure all Philosophies, SoW, BoD, General Specifications, Execution Plans, Procedures, R&R, Org Charts, NOC General Forms, Risk Management Documents are all Completed prior to FEED Starting
Risk Actions Description: When all documentation is left to the Contractor the price will increase and the work will be substandard (majority of time). A clear target for quality will not be achieved. NOC need to lead proceedings not be led. More completed documents at ITT then less questions and higher quality services provided from Contractor.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: GATE FEED ITT & FEED Phase 3
Action Due Date: GATE FEED ITT & FEED Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Start to review all documents without budget approval and ensure all documents are fully reviewed and approved
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure management buy-in and ensure a strong team can support the PMT

Source row 79: General to other Projects: Cost Estimates provided by Contractor are incomplete and need recalcualting prior to issuing Invitation to Tender (ITT) for EPC Bidding Process.

#: 2
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: GATE III
Risk Discipline: FEED MPD PMT
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2024-11-24
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Cost Estimates provided by Contractor are incomplete and need recalcualting prior to issuing Invitation to Tender (ITT) for EPC Bidding Process.
Consequences / Impact: Cost Estimate on Insufficent Equipment had been appraised and calculated with large amounts unknown and not accounted for. Level 3 Cost Estimate unobtainable. Financial risk, Funding and Cash Flow issues
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: GATE EPC ITT
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: GATE FEED ITT & FEED Phase 3
Exposure Start Date: Start of FEED ITT
Exposure End Date: FEED ITT Gate
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 16
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -15
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure historical data used on previous Projects is utilised and ensure dedicated Cost Controller is available full time in a PMT set up at the start of Phase 2 Conceptual Design to prevent errors.
Risk Actions Description: Budget will vastly increase out of control and the Project Costs will massively increase leaving investors unhappy with the Companies management of financial affairs.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Prior to Phase 4
Action Due Date: GATE FEED ITT & FEED Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Start to review all documents without budget approval and ensure all documents are fully reviewed and approved
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Closer scrutiny during FEED on all associated cost of the Project

Source row 80: General to other Projects: Poor and Incomplete FEEDs, Previous FEEDs have not contained sufficient detailed information to move quickly to the next phase via Invitation to Tender (ITT).

#: 3
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: FEED MPD PMT
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Poor and Incomplete FEEDs, Previous FEEDs have not contained sufficient detailed information to move quickly to the next phase via Invitation to Tender (ITT).
Consequences / Impact: Creating excessive delays in forming the ITT for EPC Phase 4 due to the lack of quality information provided by the FEED Contractor. This delay has caused some projects to be delayed by over 36 Months. Impacting completion dates and increasing Project Costs (approximately 15%)
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Years
Project Phase: Risk Effected: GATE EPC ITT
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: GATE FEED ITT & FEED Phase 3
Exposure Start Date: Start of FEED ITT
Exposure End Date: FEED ITT Gate
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 3
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 6
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Do not request Contractor to write and provide Critical Documents that should be prepared by Company. Ensure all documents are checked periodically throughout the life span of the FEED not signed off at the end. Increase the client scrutiny with correct manpower
Risk Actions Description: Severe impact and massive delays in advancing the Project through the Phases due to lack of Quality information received in FEED . Threat to the Schedule and financial increases of the Project CAPEX / EPC Cost Overruns
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Prior to Phase 4
Action Due Date: GATE FEED ITT & FEED Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Once the Project recieves financial approval then the Team will be increased and will include all the necessary people to review and approve documentation prior to entering into the EPC Phase.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure the correct personnel in place prior to the FEED starting.

Source row 81: General to other Projects: Financial stability of suppliers

#: 4
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Client Management Committee
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Financial stability of suppliers
Consequences / Impact: Can stop all site activities and prevent further work continuing
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: GATE EPC ITT
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: GATE FEED ITT & FEED Phase 3
Exposure Start Date: Start of FEED ITT
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 2
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 4
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Due diligence undertaken on suppliers by Construction Contractor. Advanced payment guarantees. ITT will require Construction bidders to provide financial details of major vendors to be used.
Risk Actions Description: Using a Contractor never used before increases the risk of failure
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Prior to Phase 4
Action Due Date: GATE FEED ITT & FEED Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start Phase 3
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Schedule Contingency and have 2nd Supplier prepared
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Due diligence when choosing a Construction Contractor

Source row 82: Project: If the construction materials and equipment arrive at the site without a proper storage facility, it poses a Risk of Schedule delays. Inadequate storage can lead to Disorganisation, Damage, and difficulties in Locating and Retrieving required items, impacting the construction timeline.

#: 1
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC & Logistics
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-18
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: If the construction materials and equipment arrive at the site without a proper storage facility, it poses a Risk of Schedule delays. Inadequate storage can lead to Disorganisation, Damage, and difficulties in Locating and Retrieving required items, impacting the construction timeline.
Consequences / Impact: IL03-Late award of Construction Contract, Late Start of Storage Facility Construction. Delay in QA/QC Checks, Procurement and Delivery of required Storage Infrastructure.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Production/Reliability
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Establish a well-organised and secure storage area before the arrival of construction materials and equipment. Plan the layout to accommodate different types of materials and ensure proper labeling for easy identification. Regularly inspect and maintain the storage facility to ensure its effectiveness throughout the project.
Risk Actions Description: Client own all the Risks if a Construction Contractor is not available for construction of a secure laydown area and area not built in time for delivery of equipment.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Communication with supplier on going , reference to letters/ emails (Failed)
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better communication between Management Committee, ensure Contract is signed with Construction Company in advance of materials arriving in Country with time to build a facility.

Source row 83: Project PMT request TDE Site Supervision Approval and Letter of Credit to Open which is a key factor in Project Project success.

#: 2
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-18
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project PMT request TDE Site Supervision Approval and Letter of Credit to Open which is a key factor in Project Project success.
Consequences / Impact: Management Committee approved request on Nov 18th - Resolution # 04-2025/ 96 . Was forwarded to Finance department to open Letter of Credit - Nov 25th any potential delays can have a direct impact on Construction Completion.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 12 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Production/Reliability
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Letter of Credit to be issued ASAP from Finance to ensure timely Vendor Site Supervision starting with Tray installation in Glycol Column
Risk Actions Description: Without Vendor Site Supervision the Risk of Project failure is significantly increased when installation and operation of Vendor specific equipment is completed without the correct Supervision.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Finance Department of Client
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Management Committee to liase more closely with the Finance department before approving project Letter of Credit.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better communication between Management Committee and Finance Department to ensure Letter of Credit is available to Projects when required.

Source row 84: Project: Lack of Quality information in Manufacturers Record Books during equipment manufacture has direct Impact on Commissioning Phase

#: 3
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Lack of Quality information in Manufacturers Record Books during equipment manufacture has direct Impact on Commissioning Phase
Consequences / Impact: Due to the Lack of Factory Acceptance Testing and the lack of physical final review of Manufacturers Record Book ensured no 3rd Parties or Operators could use the MRB as the primary source of information for Construction or Commissioning
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 3 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure Client personnel fully understand what information is required in a Manufactures Record Book and ensure all the relevant information has been fully reviewed prior to equipment being shipped.
Risk Actions Description: Ensure all comments have been incororated into records, Ensure correct and relevant information has been placed in MRB, ensure all testing Data and Commissioning Lists have been included in the book.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Review MRB before Equipment can be released ready for shippment and ensure no payment for manufacturing Completion has been done until MRB has been fully signed off by Client personnel.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: To use own emplyees rather than 3rd party Inspection Teams who have no responsibility of quality of product once equipment left Vendor Building

Source row 85: Project: Equipment Arrived at Port February 2025 and was not physically checked on site for 9 months some equipment (23/04/2026 still being counted (Trays))

#: 4
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Equipment Arrived at Port February 2025 and was not physically checked on site for 9 months some equipment (23/04/2026 still being counted (Trays))
Consequences / Impact: Due to the Lack Quality Inspection once equipment arrived on site, payments made to vendor for Equipment, once checked, number problems with equipment, damages in transit, incorrect quantities of materials, water damage of equipment, missing equipment, manifest incorrect.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: As per Quality plan, it is the vendor responsibility to ensure equipment arrives on site with everything in working order, with correct quantities of materials, not left to Client
Risk Actions Description: Ensure all responsibility left with vendor / contractor, ensure storage area has been built prior to equipment arriving on site. Ensure material has been fully inspected prior to any payment to vendor / contractor.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Review MRB before Equipment can be released ready for shippment and ensure no payment for manufacturing Completion has been done until MRB has been fully signed off by Client personnel.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: To use own emplyees rather than 3rd party Inspection Teams who have no responsibility of quality of product once equipment left Vendor Building

Source row 86: General to other Projects: Lack of creating Client Schedule and relying on the Contractors schedule

#: 5
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Planning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-17
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Lack of creating Client Schedule and relying on the Contractors schedule
Consequences / Impact: Once the Contractor was starting to witness delays the weekly issue of a schedule stopped. Client PMT relied solely on Contractors schedule and Client Management could not forecast delays.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 12
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure Skyline Schedule with Company Back-Up schedule has been implemented to track and ensure Contractor schedule is correct
Risk Actions Description: Ensure the shadow schedule and skyline with Systems and Sub-Systems are all upto date at all time
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Ensure Client Procedures are correctly adherred to at all times and ensure Company Schedule is upto date
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure all members of PMT understand the criticality of the Schedule

Source row 87: Project: During Technical Drawing Approval Process for Project Project it was found that drawings had been been altered by the Contractor without client approval, also drawings incorporated equipment that was not on the approved vendor list

#: 6
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Legal & QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-17
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: During Technical Drawing Approval Process for Project Project it was found that drawings had been been altered by the Contractor without client approval, also drawings incorporated equipment that was not on the approved vendor list
Consequences / Impact: The impact was critical and wrong materials had been added and purchased that could / would have had fatal consequences if they had been installed on site. Equipment had to be reordered creating delays in all remaining Phases
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 9 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure a systematic review by ALL Lead Disciplines ensure a methodical review as final inspection of drawings carried out and not left to final minute sign off
Risk Actions Description: Discipline Leads need to be made awatre of previous "lesson learnt" so no repeat of previous deception
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Tracking to be carried out during the review process of every document
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure all members of PMT understand the criticality of reviewing the Final Approved drawings

Source row 88: General to other Projects: Contract Clearly States that materials purchased are from North American, Japan & Western Europe and NO OTHER COUNTRY

#: 7
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Contract Clearly States that materials purchased are from North American, Japan & Western Europe and NO OTHER COUNTRY
Consequences / Impact: It has been seen on numerous occasions that during the build process at vendor Facility TDE that many items are being purchased in lots of different and less developed Countries
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: End of Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 3
Severity (after mitigation): 2
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 6
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: During Quality Inspections on site during any build the materials tracability must be questioned immediately and with holding payment for lack of quality will aid a favourable response.
Risk Actions Description: Check Raw Material certification, list defections on daily check sheet, highlight to upper management problems to be immediately resolved. Get special dispensation if required
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Checks to be carried out during first week of quality checks during equipment build
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure all members of PMT Quality Team fully aware of contract requirments and to holt work when discovered and resolution

Source row 89: General to other Projects: Unavailability of required quantities of Reinforcement, Cement, aggregates and concrete additives for compressor foundation

#: 8
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Construction
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Unavailability of required quantities of Reinforcement, Cement, aggregates and concrete additives for compressor foundation
Consequences / Impact: Construction at remote locations always have risk of ontime delivery of required quantities of Reinforcement, Cement, aggregates and concrete additives for compressor foundation foundations which needs huge quantities to pour the concrete in one go.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: End of Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 16
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 2
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Proper Plan and Procurement of required quantities of materials well in advance before pouring of concrete dates.
Risk Actions Description: Contractor to confirm in writing about required quantities of Reinforcement, Cement, aggregates and concrete additives for compressor foundations against available quantities well in advance ensuring the Company that concrete pouring can be performed smoothly without any interruption and without any chnaces of cold joint in concrete foundation.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Early Planning to ensure correct quantities
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Good Construction Manager will be able to avoid early problems during pouring

Source row 90: Project Lack of adequate Factory Acceptance Testing whilst testing completed without Client Witnessing. Also testing Completed without all ancillary equipment attached and powered-up

#: 9
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project Lack of adequate Factory Acceptance Testing whilst testing completed without Client Witnessing. Also testing Completed without all ancillary equipment attached and powered-up
Consequences / Impact: Lack of adequate Factory Acceptance Testing FAT can result in the complete failure of critical equipment and holting a Project until new equipment is built, transported to site and installed
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 3 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Stop all work on specific equipment in the Factory until client Team can physically verify Factory Acceptance Testing has been successfully Tested with all ancillary equipment attached and tested as necessary.
Risk Actions Description: No equipment can be loaded for export to site until FAT is physically witnessed, approved and signed off by Client Representative
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Checks to be carried out during FAT of quality checks during equipment testing
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure all members of PMT Quality Team fully aware of contract requirments and to holt work when necessary during FATs

Source row 91: Project: Lack of adequate preservation of equipment prior to shipping, now impacted Glycol Contactor inside shell. Heavy Blooming and start of flake rusting due to lack of preservation

#: 10
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Lack of adequate preservation of equipment prior to shipping, now impacted Glycol Contactor inside shell. Heavy Blooming and start of flake rusting due to lack of preservation
Consequences / Impact: Lack of adequate preservation can and will cause equipment damage during storage at vendor, transportation to site, storage at site and installation. Additional work of sweep blasting inside of column will create additional costs to resolve the issue
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Stop all work and all payments to vendor until the correct preservation has been adequately carried out to the clients requests.
Risk Actions Description: All payments stopped if adequate preservation has not been carried-out and a further inspection carried out at vendor cost to see if any damage has occurred then witnessed and signed off by Client Representative
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: All Checks on preservation to be carried out within weeks of FAT acceptance and before shipping. Tighten up the contract and tighten up on inspection prior to shipping. Client also to check with Corrosion Department for advise.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure all members of PMT Quality Team fully aware of contract requirments and to holt work when necessary during preservation inspection.

Source row 92: Project BV Client Respresentatives in Edmonton Canada: Lack of physical witnessing and quantifying the Bill of Laden prior to shipping

#: 11
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project BV Client Respresentatives in Edmonton Canada: Lack of physical witnessing and quantifying the Bill of Laden prior to shipping
Consequences / Impact: Not having client people witnessing the loading of specialist equipment and ancillary materials resulting in not having sufficient quantities of equipment to complete a specific job on site. Caused by checking and approving "Online" Bill of Laden prior to shipping
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Stop all work until vendor can physically verify to client representative the materials packed compared to the agreed Bill of Laden prior to shipping.
Risk Actions Description: All payments stopped if adequate preservation has not been carried-out and a further inspection carried out at vendor cost to see if any damage has occurred then witnessed and signed off by Client Representative
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Check BOL prior to closing container and shipping with client representative.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure all members of PMT Quality Team fully aware of physically checking inventory on BOL prior to shipping.

Source row 93: Project: Impacted by Lack of Client Lifting Permit during Construction as part of the Lifting Plan

#: 12
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Safety
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Impacted by Lack of Client Lifting Permit during Construction as part of the Lifting Plan
Consequences / Impact: Client Lifting Permit does not exist in Client Permit To Work (PTW) System or in Client HSE Manual. Not having these Permits increases risks during any lifting sequence and can risk life
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 2
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 4
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Client need to invest in time and effort in creating a Client Lifting Permit and place into PTW System and into HSE manual
Risk Actions Description: MPD & Safety to review entire Safety Protocols and bring up to date including Lifting Permit
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: ASAP to carryout all the necessary work to create an approved Client Permit Lifting
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure all members of MPD Management & HSE Management treat as a priority to reduce risk to personnel.

Source row 94: Project QA/QC Team has noted a Lack of Flange Management records during the fabricated skids and connecting piping

#: 13
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project QA/QC Team has noted a Lack of Flange Management records during the fabricated skids and connecting piping
Consequences / Impact: Total Lack of Flange Management Records for skid equipment and interconnecting piping not provided by Vendor / Contractor. Having no records of bolt torques or grade of steel used during the fabrication of piping skids the equipment will require a full set of new Bolts and Gaskets to re-torque every bolt
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Quality Inspection team in Factory and On Site need to ensure Flange management is continously up-dated for every flanged pipe and equipment including torque valvues
Risk Actions Description: All work to immediately stop if Flange management book not available or incorrectly filled out.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Ensure at the start of any manufacturing all torque values have been recorded by Engineering and that Flange Management book is available
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure all members of PMT Quality Team fully aware of physically checking Flange Management Book.

Source row 95: Project QA/QC Team has noted discoloration on both the stainless-steel weld and welded surface

#: 14
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project QA/QC Team has noted discoloration on both the stainless-steel weld and welded surface
Consequences / Impact: Total Lack of Quality Control During Welding caused by overheating / unproper gas shielding during welding, which not only affects a material’s colour but degrades its corrosion resistance and mechanical properties as well and reducing the servicability of equipment
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 12
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Welding Expert in Quality Inspection Team has to evaluate each welder and ensure welding is of a sufficiently high Quality to proceed on client equipment
Risk Actions Description: Complete early failure of critical equipment and will require replacement. If caught in facory no payment to be made to contractor until problem rectified.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Will check competencies of all welders before proceeding
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure all members of PMT Welding Quality Team fully aware of physically checks required of all welders before proceeding.

Source row 96: Project QA/QC Team on site witnessed: Loose Valves not attached to skids: Traces of water were found inside the ball valves. Signs of internal corrosion were noted on the valve's internals. Visible damage to the serration of the valve flanges by contaminations

#: 15
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project QA/QC Team on site witnessed: Loose Valves not attached to skids: Traces of water were found inside the ball valves. Signs of internal corrosion were noted on the valve's internals. Visible damage to the serration of the valve flanges by contaminations
Consequences / Impact: The presence of water in the valves means that after initial bench testing at vendor facility the valves had not been fully dried off and preserved correctly culminating in damaged valves and reducing inventory stock ready for Start-Up purposes and risking failure of the plant
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure every valve that has been bench test (either air or hydraulic testing carries a full certification of drying and preserving before shipping to the Project.
Risk Actions Description: Complete early failure of critical equipment and will require replacement. If caught in facory no payment to be made to contractor until problem rectified.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Ensure at the start of any manufacturing all torque values have been recorded by Engineering and that Flange Management book is available
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure all members of PMT Quality Team fully aware of physically checking Flange Management Book.

Source row 97: Project QA/QC Team highlighted Fitted Valves: Unable to Operate Valves for Testing Skids. System requires Energised prior to checks made to confirm conditions of valves before TDEs extended Warranty Expires. (Note Loose stock valve 33 fail of 56 tested) due to lack of FAT Testing Supervision, expect same proportion on skid mounted valves.

#: 16
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project QA/QC Team highlighted Fitted Valves: Unable to Operate Valves for Testing Skids. System requires Energised prior to checks made to confirm conditions of valves before TDEs extended Warranty Expires. (Note Loose stock valve 33 fail of 56 tested) due to lack of FAT Testing Supervision, expect same proportion on skid mounted valves.
Consequences / Impact: a. The Project has a high probability of stalling. b. If valves are removed off Skid to check, then Warranty is not valid. c. Increased cost of Vendor Recall when system does not operate correctly when first energised and tested. d. High Risk to FIAL Claim of inactivity waiting on Client. e. Criticality: i. Consequence: HSE: Wide spread Contamination if valve. ii. Economic: Loss of Production Time due to lack of spares > $10 MM USD: iii. Experience with TDE: Poor Performance, No Assistance: iv. TDE Standard Product, Common Valves:
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure spare kits have been purchased for a full overhaul
Risk Actions Description: Complete early failure of critical equipment and will require replacement. If caught in facory no payment to be made to contractor until problem rectified.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Ensure at the start of any manufacturing all QA/QC has been accuratelty followed
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure all members of PMT Quality Team fully aware of physically checking

Source row 98: Project PMT on site has noted a Lack of Inspection Test Procedures which should have been produced for FAT had not been carried-out and therefore the information is unknown on how each skid of Contractor supplied equipment should be safely tested once ready for Pre-Commissioning

#: 17
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project PMT on site has noted a Lack of Inspection Test Procedures which should have been produced for FAT had not been carried-out and therefore the information is unknown on how each skid of Contractor supplied equipment should be safely tested once ready for Pre-Commissioning
Consequences / Impact: Client did not have a FAT Register or a Manufacturers Record Book (MRB) Register to understand what level of inspection had been completed for each piece of equipment. Lack of testing will vastly increase the risk of failure on site.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Quality Inspection Team has to fully understand the level of Testing required for each piece of equipment and time to review the testing with Lead Engineers back at main Office to enable safe accurate testing
Risk Actions Description: Lack of testing means high probabilty of early equipment failure
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: At the end of Detailed Design a full Criteria of Inspection Test Procedure should be known to the Quality Inspection Team if not formally sent to Client work on equipment to stop
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure all members of PMT Quality Team fully aware of physical Inspection Test procedures required.

Source row 99: Project QA/QC Electrical Discipline has noted: Lack of Qualified Electrical (Ex) Proof Design Engineers during the FEED and Detailed Design Stages who neglected to fully understand the ramifications of fitting incorrect equipment into Flammable Zone Rated Area.

#: 18
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Electrical (Ex)
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project QA/QC Electrical Discipline has noted: Lack of Qualified Electrical (Ex) Proof Design Engineers during the FEED and Detailed Design Stages who neglected to fully understand the ramifications of fitting incorrect equipment into Flammable Zone Rated Area.
Consequences / Impact: Contractor and Client did not have the correct qualified personnel within Design team to safely design a system for highly flammable area, including Junction Boxes, Electrical Glands, Cable Fireproof rated. Could easily have resulted in multiple fatalities.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 2 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Electrical (EX) certified Quality Inspection Engineer has to employeeed to review the status of design and appraise the quality of the work being carried out by vendor
Risk Actions Description: Lack of testing understanding Ex rated equipment will result in the high probabilty of an explosion in highly flammable area and high probability of fatalities
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: At the start of Detailed Design Electrical EX Engineer to provide safety criteria concerning equipment that is EX Rated in flammable Areas
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure Electrical EX professional from the PMT Quality Team fully aware of design criteria for review.

Source row 100: Project PMT had noted: During Construction the Contractor Planner did not show several critical items including Critical Path Method (CPM) Schedule Risk Modeling and Analysis also the Skyline showing Systems & Sub-System Completion

#: 19
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: FIAL Planning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project PMT had noted: During Construction the Contractor Planner did not show several critical items including Critical Path Method (CPM) Schedule Risk Modeling and Analysis also the Skyline showing Systems & Sub-System Completion
Consequences / Impact: The Contractor is unable to satisfy the Client Contract by not accurately tracking the Critical path and not tracking the System Sub-System completion. This will create confusion and delays when areas have walk downs when not in the correct sequence of inspection
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 9 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure that Contract Planner is fully conversant with Critical Path Analysis and understanding Skyline Priorities
Risk Actions Description: If not tracking criticality then it is impossible to know if your completing the work in the correct sequence
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 2
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: At the start of the Phase a ggod understanding should be made in understanding the time line and criticality
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure Electrical EX professional from the PMT Quality Team fully aware of design criteria for review.

Source row 101: General to other Projects: Found it difficult in Importing Radios & Frequency Licensing for Radio Systems 2 way Atex radio

#: 20
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Safety
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Found it difficult in Importing Radios & Frequency Licensing for Radio Systems 2 way Atex radio
Consequences / Impact: Very difficult to communicate on a construction site without the use of spark resistant radio systems required in large numbers.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure that Contractors plan early to provide adequate radios to site prior to the start of EPC Phase of the Project
Risk Actions Description: Work will be unable to be safely completed if radios are not available from the very beginning of the Project.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Early planning for Radios will mitigate any delays for radios
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Early Planning and purchase of Radios and application for frequency licensing.

Source row 102: General to other Projects: are expecting difficulty in excessive administration time by Libyan Authorities for Visas for critical vendor personnel to visit site during Construction, Pre-Commissioning & Commissioning

#: 21
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Human Resource
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: are expecting difficulty in excessive administration time by Libyan Authorities for Visas for critical vendor personnel to visit site during Construction, Pre-Commissioning & Commissioning
Consequences / Impact: Very difficult to calculate as to when visa are cleared for personnel entering the Country to complete critical work with a high risk of delays.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 2
Severity (after mitigation): 2
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 4
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure that Contractors plan early entry into Country to avoid any delays. Early Planning and Good Coordination can reduce the impact of delays
Risk Actions Description: Critical Vendor Work will be unable to be completed if personnel cannot attain visas within a given window and will impact the work schedule of completion.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Early planning for and good communication with Vendor Coordinator is essential once the budget has been approved.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Early planning for and good communication with Vendor Coordinator is essential

Source row 103: General to other Projects: Difficulty in excessive administration time by Libyan Authorities for Customs Clearance and essential Tie-In Equipment

#: 22
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Procurement
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Difficulty in excessive administration time by Libyan Authorities for Customs Clearance and essential Tie-In Equipment
Consequences / Impact: Very difficult to calculate as to when equipment is released from customs when entering the Country to complete critical work with a high risk of delays that will impact Project Schedule.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 3
Severity (after mitigation): 3
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 9
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -16
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure that Contractors plan early entry into Country to avoid any delays, ensure all Libyan regulations are followed for packaging. Early Planning and Good Coordination can reduce the impact of delays
Risk Actions Description: Critical Equipment should be brought into the Country in bulk to prevent individual items held. Better chance of approval if equipment is brought into Country in bulk
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: L
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Early planning and good communication with all equipment loaded onto a single vessel to remove the possibility of losing equipment when held up in Customs.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Early planning and good communication with Manufactures of Supplied Equipment from outside Libya

Source row 104: Project Team have noted inefficiencies in the Client Contracting & Procurement Processes and use the Contractor to purchase items due to reduced time to purchase. This increases costs to the Project due to Client lack of capabilities.

#: 23
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Procurement
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project Team have noted inefficiencies in the Client Contracting & Procurement Processes and use the Contractor to purchase items due to reduced time to purchase. This increases costs to the Project due to Client lack of capabilities.
Consequences / Impact: Very difficult to calculate as to when equipment request will be approved and excessive time scale in ordering equipment and delays in shipping and getting to site. Client now have a system that has been strangulated over processing requests and departmental management being involved in every stage of the process
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 9 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 3 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 3
Severity (after mitigation): 3
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 9
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -16
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Embed Procurement Personnel within the Team and to stay with PMT Team from the on-set of Team being created
Risk Actions Description: Reliance upon Contractor to provide spares is costly to the Company and should be avoided to ensure savings are made for the Project. Due to current system the problem cannot be eradicated and can only be reduced. Need Procurment Department to be more Pro-Active
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 2
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: L
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Early planning for and good communication with is essential to mitigate the slow response on material requests, report any delays to NOC and Chairman.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Early planning for and good communication with Procurment Department is essential

Source row 105: General to other Projects: A Lack of a Dedicated Client Quality Inspection Team within MPD

#: 24
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-19
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: A Lack of a Dedicated Client Quality Inspection Team within MPD
Consequences / Impact: Company have used 3rd Party Quality Inspection teams for overseas Euipment Builds off site and the standard of work has been poor to non existant. With massive amount of re-work on site and critical equipment not shipped. Project schedule heavily impacted due to lack of ownership on Quality Inspections from 3rd party
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 3 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Train own people to become Quality Inspectors and can be utilised on site during Construction as QA on site (Same person as vendor facility) therefore ensuring Quality Continuity.
Risk Actions Description: Very detrimental on Build Quality and Quality Control when relying on 3rd Party Companies
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Immediately
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Employing own people to control Quality both at vendor Facility and during build will massively increase the quality of equipment received on site.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Employ own people for Quality inspections abroad.

Source row 106: Project PM to follow up on 2026 Budget Revision approval – SOR & AFE updates

#: 25
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-28
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project PM to follow up on 2026 Budget Revision approval – SOR & AFE updates
Consequences / Impact: Finalise revision and submit to Chairman / Finance Department for approval.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 2
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 8
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -7
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: PM to continue to highlight any Risks to Upper Management concering the delay in approval of the Budget Revision
Risk Actions Description: The MPD Manager has to ensure 2026 Budget Revision Approval is signed to protect SOR & AFE Finances
Action By: Client
Action Owner: MPD Manager
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Weekly
Action Priority H/M/L: L
Action Probability of success: L
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: No mitigation discussed, out of Project Control
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Continually unresolved

Source row 107: Project's Letter of Credit for FIAL Change order No. 01/2025- Missing Material - Finance Dept was issued a memo to open the Letter of Credit on Nov 4th, 11th and 25th and a further reminder was sent on December 08-2025 FIAL placed POs and they need Letter of Credit to be opened.

#: 26
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-28
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project's Letter of Credit for FIAL Change order No. 01/2025- Missing Material - Finance Dept was issued a memo to open the Letter of Credit on Nov 4th, 11th and 25th and a further reminder was sent on December 08-2025 FIAL placed POs and they need Letter of Credit to be opened.
Consequences / Impact: Without the letter of Credit FIAL are unwilling to expose themselves to Financial Risk and place the Purchase Order for vital materials for Tie-Ins. The delay will have a direct impact on the Project and windows of opportunity to complete tie-ins will be missed
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): FIAL
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Issue Letter of Credit to FIAL for Change Order No. 01/2025- Missing Materials and ensure all Material are on site ASAP
Risk Actions Description: Very detrimental to Client's reputation when Contractors have been requested to carry out work and Client unable follow through with a letter of credit.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: MPD Manager
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Budget for Project should be the responsibility of the Project Manager and all finances should already be in place. In future no requests made for Contract assistance without financial backing already guaranteed
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Don't ask for assistance if the Project cannot guarantee immediate payment.

Source row 108: Project's Purchase Request Approved, Purchase Order to be issued by Materials Department. Letter of Credit for FIAL Change order No 01/2026 - ESD Cables, JBS, Pop Tank, Misalignment

#: 27
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-28
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project's Purchase Request Approved, Purchase Order to be issued by Materials Department. Letter of Credit for FIAL Change order No 01/2026 - ESD Cables, JBS, Pop Tank, Misalignment
Consequences / Impact: Purchase Order delay from Materials Department will extend the Project Schedule and Cost of the Project
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): FIAL
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 12
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Materials Department to issue PO for materials ESD Cables, JBS, Pop Tank. Have a meeting with Materials Department and provide evidence of impact of delays due to unissued PO
Risk Actions Description: Detrimental to Client's Schedule when waiting on the release of a PO for critical materials.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Currently waiting PO to be issued by Materials Department
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Closer contact with Material Department have person within MPD for all purchase requests and will hasten PO requests

Source row 109: FIAL Project Construction Contractor to provide status of the Additional Items to be procured as part of the original contract without any commercial implications. FIAL so far has delivered only 14" DualDisk Wafer Check Valve. Remaining items status to be provided with ETA (2 nos of PDIT, Plant and Area Lighting, hardwares & cables).

#: 28
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 3. Commercial
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: FIAL Procurement
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-15
Identify / Change by: Ali
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: FIAL Project Construction Contractor to provide status of the Additional Items to be procured as part of the original contract without any commercial implications. FIAL so far has delivered only 14" DualDisk Wafer Check Valve. Remaining items status to be provided with ETA (2 nos of PDIT, Plant and Area Lighting, hardwares & cables).
Consequences / Impact: Delay in FIAL purchasing Contractual Material has the potential of delaying critical Commissioning activities and unable to close Mechanical Completion due to A ITRs and A Punch Items
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 & 5
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 5
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 12
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: FIAL Materials Department to issue materials ASAP to prevent additional time and cost to the Project
Risk Actions Description: Detrimental to Client's Schedule when waiting on the release of FIAL responsible critical materials. Resolve issues direct with FIAL and question reason for delay. Question: Is the delay related to Client's delaid Letter of Credit?
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Currently in negociations with FIAL and trying to resolve the issue
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better understanding and need to act as "One Team" with the Contractor

Source row 110: FIAL Project Construction Contractor to be provided a Change Order for the Condensate Recycle Line & Tie-ins works

#: 29
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-15
Identify / Change by: Ali
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: FIAL Project Construction Contractor to be provided a Change Order for the Condensate Recycle Line & Tie-ins works
Consequences / Impact: Materials may be required to complete the works and delays may be incurred. Plant Start-up will be delayed if line is not fitted in a timely manner
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Resolve all these small issues in a manner that can allow time to be purchased and shipped to site.
Risk Actions Description: Detrimental to Client's Schedule when waiting on critical materials. Resolve issues direct with FIAL and question reason for delay. Question: Is the delay related to Client's delaid Letter of Credit?
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Currently in negociations with FIAL and trying to resolve the issue. Client replied to FIAL's offer on 15 April 2026. Awaiting for FIAL's response
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better understanding and need to act as "One Team" with the Contractor

Source row 111: Project FIAL the Construction Contractor to provide an up-dated Schedule (last received schedule in August 2025). FIAL to update the schedule after the Letter of Credit issued

#: 30
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-24
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project FIAL the Construction Contractor to provide an up-dated Schedule (last received schedule in August 2025). FIAL to update the schedule after the Letter of Credit issued
Consequences / Impact: Project Should Immediately construct a schedule based on the information already known as a completion date is totally unknown. Need quality accurate information
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: The Contractor has agreed to Provide a schedule and Management must insist on a schedule (as accurate as can be expected) to be issued ASAP.
Risk Actions Description: Project will continue to be extended with an increase in costs incurred
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Client to resolve Contract Issues and all finance issues that FIAL require resolving before full and open cooperation from FIAL is offered
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better understanding and need to act as "One Team" with the Contractor

Source row 112: Project already issued a Purchase Order for a new Instrument Air (IA) package, but currently not placed within the Schedule and not discussed as required for initial Start Up as part of Faregh upgrade. Some possible design issues. Review noted the FP‑1 IA P&IDs, only an inlet filter upstream of the dryer is shown, with no outlet (post‑dryer) filter indicated. Not clear how dew point control and monitoring is implemented

#: 31
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC & Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-24
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project already issued a Purchase Order for a new Instrument Air (IA) package, but currently not placed within the Schedule and not discussed as required for initial Start Up as part of Faregh upgrade. Some possible design issues. Review noted the FP‑1 IA P&IDs, only an inlet filter upstream of the dryer is shown, with no outlet (post‑dryer) filter indicated. Not clear how dew point control and monitoring is implemented
Consequences / Impact: Project Should clarify several issues prior to receiving equipment: Expected date of delivery Ex-Works. With no Outlet Filter how particle control is ensured downstream of the dryer before distribution to IA headers. No online moisture/dew point analyzer is shown
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Need to ensure the design is correct prior to receiving equipment and ensuring all Engineering Points have been adequately resolved and equipment expedited ASAP and placed on the FIAL Schedule.
Risk Actions Description: Project will continue to be extended with an increase in costs incurred if IA Package is required prior to start up.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 3
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Client discussions with Mr. Burhan and Gialo GMC (Mr Mukhtar) on 08th March 2026
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Better quality of Design Team members during the Conceptual design phase would have prevented additional critical equipment being purchased so late on within the Project.

Source row 113: Project PMT needs to follow up and close - Firewater Ring main tie-ins 8” ANSI 150# Fibre-Glass Slip-on Flange FIAL - STQ-0009 On hold, Client are requesting Carbon Steel. 4 Points to Tie-In and will take approximately 3 Days when the Firewater Ring Main will be turned of that supplies FPII. This can only be completed when the remaining Plant is Shutdown

#: 32
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Piping
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-25
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project PMT needs to follow up and close - Firewater Ring main tie-ins 8” ANSI 150# Fibre-Glass Slip-on Flange FIAL - STQ-0009 On hold, Client are requesting Carbon Steel. 4 Points to Tie-In and will take approximately 3 Days when the Firewater Ring Main will be turned of that supplies FPII. This can only be completed when the remaining Plant is Shutdown
Consequences / Impact: Project to respond and decide what materials should be allowed to ensure a timely purchase of materials and prevent any delays. The Firewater ring main cannot be shut off whilst the rest of the plant is live. Risk too high, will have to wait for a Shutdown opportunity
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 12
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Project to make a quick decision and ensure that the materials are purchased as quickly as possible to help take advantage of an unplanned shutdown of the main plant. Ensuring that additional firewatchers are available when the Main Plant does not have a Firewater Ringmain service
Risk Actions Description: The purchase of materials for the Firewater System Tie-In has to be completed ASAP to ensure the Upgrade is ready at any opportunity to complete an early completion, otherwise the plant will continue to not make money for the company and reclaim investment
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: FIAL STQ-0009 Currently on Hold
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Should have had all Tie-Ins completed before the Project Upgrade was even started

Source row 114: Project PMT: Wrong cable and Junction Boxes installed on skids, incorrect design specifications. Project PMT needs to closely monitor update on FIAL Supply / PO of Non-compliant Instrumentation JB,Fire Resistant Cables

#: 33
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-25
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project PMT: Wrong cable and Junction Boxes installed on skids, incorrect design specifications. Project PMT needs to closely monitor update on FIAL Supply / PO of Non-compliant Instrumentation JB,Fire Resistant Cables
Consequences / Impact: Initial design of equipment was incorrect due to design engineer not having the correct explosion proof qualifications. Wrong Cable and Junction installed on the equipment could have caused a major incident with loss of equipment and loss of life.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Project to change out all cables and Junction Boxes; ACCEPTED technically with supply of necessary suitable cables for FR cables. Techncial Approval sent to FIAL on Dec 16, 2025
Risk Actions Description: The purchase of materials for the Cables and Junction Boxes is currently underway. Schedule has been extended due to the need for replacement cables and JBs
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Reminder sent on 09th December 2025. NOC - FIAL -65-2025. NOC completed techical evaluation and review of unpriced commercial offers of both Fire Resistance (FR) cables and Instrumentation Junction Boxes (IJBs)
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Before any design work is started in the future, creditations to the correct societies have to be checked, especially for explosion proof areas

Source row 115: Project: Incorrect materials received on site and unable to complete the Project. Bill of Material (Bill of Laden) did not match quantities within crates and was not physically checked during packing and shipping from Edmunton Canada. BV Client representative only electronically checked packing list (BV stamp proves statement)

#: 34
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 3. Commercial
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: QA/QC
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-25
Identify / Change by: PE
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Incorrect materials received on site and unable to complete the Project. Bill of Material (Bill of Laden) did not match quantities within crates and was not physically checked during packing and shipping from Edmunton Canada. BV Client representative only electronically checked packing list (BV stamp proves statement)
Consequences / Impact: Critical Items not packaged and sent and the Schedule has now been extended partially due to lack of incorrect materials.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure vendor is available to sign off incoming inventory prior to final payment as per the contract. Current contract conditions not adequate and robust for such a large purchase.
Risk Actions Description: It has taken two year before ALL materials have finally been checked off. (Glycol Column Trays finally counted on 23rd April 2026). 26 Months after arriving on site. Arriving in Country February 2024 with no inventory checks made until Septemebr 2024
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: ETA 15th May 2026
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: FPO23001-FIA-NOC-L-CS-2500079 (PO Status of Missing Materials NOC reply Fax 2025-12-09_NOC-FIAL-66-2025 * FIAL issued PO for all Missing Piping, Pipe Fittings, Manual Valves, Electrical Hardwares & Accessories (Except 7 items - alternate valve suppliers INLINES & KITZ). - FIAL PO 641-CTA - FIAL PO 642-kitz - FIAL PO 643-fevisa +arflu - FIAL PO 644-unitray - FIAL PO 645-technopipe - FIAL PO 648-Petropipe - FIAL PO 649-Invalves * Item#170 To be Swing Check Valve * Item#161 & 194 with Locking Devices * 7 alternate valves also reviewed and approved by NOC *Groudning Locknuts with lay-in lugs & StarTeck Cable Glands & Fittings - Status Unknown * proposal for uninstallatio and installation of cables and junction boxes * Quoted for Commissioing Spares *Quote for 2 year O&M to be provided. ETA 15/5/2026
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Check all material with Vendor Present once it arrives on site. With Hold 35% of the cost and once all items and condition is proven to be satisfactory then release a 30%. Paying 95% of cost of Job before seen will continue to cause the same problems.

Source row 116: Project: Insufficient Preservation Activities on site, not following Vendor Recommendations and not using a CMMS system for tracking Preservation Records. Preservation Records should have started at Vendor Facility.

#: 35
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Mechanical Static and Rotating
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-25
Identify / Change by: SM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Insufficient Preservation Activities on site, not following Vendor Recommendations and not using a CMMS system for tracking Preservation Records. Preservation Records should have started at Vendor Facility.
Consequences / Impact: Without correct Preservation / Basic Maintenance Schedules captured within the Computer Maintenance Management System (CMMS) being carried out on equipment that is not powered up then once energised untold problems may occur. Vastly increased risk not following Vendor Recommendations.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Due to a prolonged period of storage at TDE Facilities
Risk Actions Description: Due to a prolonged period of storage at TDE Facilities and the Harsh Weather Conditions the equipment encountered plus the time for deployment of Contractors to site. Not witnessed Preservation sheet with regular maintenance up-dates which will become part of the future Maintenance Schedule. So some equipments once powered up maybe siezed or difficult to turn
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: *Shaft rotation checks completed for compressors and lube oil motors . Boreoscope inspection, valve and gaskets checks to follow on selected skids *FIAL to record Nitrogren pressure reading from Comp/OS/C3 Condenser Skids on dialy basis *FIAL to maintin record keep on working condition of HVAC for both Mod Ctrl Bldg and Mod MCC Bldg
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: During the FEED & Detailed Design a maintenance schedule should be compiled before the equipment has manufactured and this schedule should be started once equipment has been built.

Source row 117: Project: Not having vendor on site to witness installation of Construction -Glycol Contactor Internals Installation into C-931 FIAL to aid construction but vendor understands the tolerances allowed and what is and what isn't acceptable during the fit-up

#: 36
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Process
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-22
Identify / Change by: SM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Not having vendor on site to witness installation of Construction -Glycol Contactor Internals Installation into C-931 FIAL to aid construction but vendor understands the tolerances allowed and what is and what isn't acceptable during the fit-up
Consequences / Impact: If no vendor is on site to approve the fitting of the trays then it carries a high degree of risk. Only once the system is operational with operational fluids will the client know if the tray installation has been successful. To reduce this risk vendors witnessing (approval) should be sort.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure somebody from Koch Glitch is available on site to ensure that the trays are fitted correctly with any allowable tolerances and all work signed off by Vendor Representative to give client guarantees of good fit up
Risk Actions Description: If no vendor representative is available then no guarantees are forthcoming and no vendor sign off. FIAL Contractors will not sign off for proving assistance. High Risk of Failure and further delays on Start-Up
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Need to confirm with upper management that funds are available to ensure Vendor from Koch Glitch is available to witness installation.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Vendor witnessing should already be part of the contract and should not need any further expenditure from client side.

Source row 118: Project: Delays in receiving Letter of Credit for materials COR #01-2026. FRR cables receiving schedule and installation - parallel cable tray installation

#: 37
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 2. Economical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-22
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Delays in receiving Letter of Credit for materials COR #01-2026. FRR cables receiving schedule and installation - parallel cable tray installation
Consequences / Impact: Shipping cables from several different Country will take approximately 4 weeks, once cable is available. Time through Libyan Customs, transport to site and to install, all take time and could impact the Project Schedule and increase costs.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Sign Letter of Credit ASAP to get the Project moving and prevent further delays
Risk Actions Description: More delays equal larger expenditure and zero returns
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Immediately
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: No action to date awaiting Management response.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Tighter Contracts and quicker inspections will prevent this occuring in the future

Source row 119: Project: Additional Walkways WO 7 & 13 Poor Workmanship and insecure. Unsure what Construction Standards have been used / followed for current construction

#: 38
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Safety
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-22
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Additional Walkways WO 7 & 13 Poor Workmanship and insecure. Unsure what Construction Standards have been used / followed for current construction
Consequences / Impact: Work carried out by Engineering (WO 7 & 13). Noted: a. Anchor Bolts not sufficiently deep enough. b. Up to 6 washers on some threads, c. Washers loose (spinning) behind nut therefore insecure. d. Incomplete Welding on Safety Guardrails. e. Safety Handrails with incomplete welding (Safety Hazard). f. Materials used for manufacture of rails not adequate for job. g. Hole frame not painted prior to installation so once painted will rust on side not visible. h. No link between platforms. i. Incorrect Grade of Material (Angle and Flat Bar not adequately Sized). J. Unknown standards used for sizing of materials. No safety compliance (guarantees) from Client Engineering . K. Poor Welding throughout the structure and not grinding to remove slag from weld
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Get FIAL Construction Company who are on site to fabricate Walkways and can guarantee the quality and safety for operator use
Risk Actions Description: Engineering Representative for fabrication of the walkways currently being Constructed by Engineering (WO 7 & 13). In discussions Engineering stated that there is insufficient materials in the scrap area to complete the work. Also stated by Engineering that they are unhappy with the materials already used and "Engineering cannot guarantee the future Operator safety when using the platforms erected by Engineering). High probability Operator in the future will be injured when using the new walkways.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Immediately
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: No action to date awaiting Management response.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure safety by using qualified experience fabricator who deal with walkways to do the job

Source row 120: Project: Mechanical Completion Walkdowns: Ineffective Punch List Management Leading to Commissioning Start-Up Delays

#: 39
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Punch List Coordinator
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-22
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Mechanical Completion Walkdowns: Ineffective Punch List Management Leading to Commissioning Start-Up Delays
Consequences / Impact: Ineffective management of deficiencies identified during Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Start-Up (CSU) activities. This includes the failure to timely resolve critical punch items (those impacting Safety, System Functionality, or Integrity), Poor Tracking and Verification of Closures, and the resulting delays in Mechanical cMmpletion, Operational Handover, and ultimately, Resume Production. This can also lead to disputes with contractor (FIAL) regarding completion responsibilities.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: End of Phase 4
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure early intervention with Planned Walkdown between Client & FIAL who is involved in the Walkdown, who decides the catergory of Punches, what is an A, B or C Punch. Use of scribe. Issueing of Work Packs for Sub-Systems review and entering Punches into the tracking system.
Risk Actions Description: Incorrect management of Punches will result in schedule extended and an increase in ptoject costs
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Immediately
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Action taken on 24th April Client Site Manager discussed Walkdown with FIAL Management and criteria requested.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Tight control of proceedings from Site Manager

Source row 121: Project: FIAL using Excel as the primary tool for tracking Inspection Test Records (ITRs-Types A,B,C)

#: 40
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Project Controls
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-22
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: FIAL using Excel as the primary tool for tracking Inspection Test Records (ITRs-Types A,B,C)
Consequences / Impact: 1.Data loss or unauthorised modifications (no access control) 2.No traceability of changes (no audit history) 3.High probability of human error. 4.No automated alerts for delays or blockages. 5.Difficulty consolidating data across discipline. 6.Loss of control over ITR tracability, potenteil delays in Pre-Commissioning / Commissioning activities, and high risk to safe and timely unit stratup
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Replace Excel with a structured, multi-user Database System (e.g., MS Access-based tool) to ensure Data Integrity, Real-Time Monitoring, and Full Traceability.
Risk Actions Description: Introducing a New System to FIAL people may not be able to convert to a new system (way) of working and not control the information correctly
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Immediately
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Request FIAL to use alternative method of Tracking ITRs
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Prior to signing a Construction Contract insist the Contractor use a more robust Database for storage and tracking of ITRs

Source row 122: General to other Projects: Multiple activities nearing the Critical Path increases likelihood of overall Schedule Delay

#: 41
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Planning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-22
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Multiple activities nearing the Critical Path increases likelihood of overall Schedule Delay
Consequences / Impact: Lack of clear prioritisation among concurrent activities, causing resource conflicts. Ineffective communication and coordination among teams working on interconnected tasks. Inaccurate estimation of task durations and dependencies, leading to unrealistic scheduling. Failure to identify and mitigate risks associated with activities on the Critical Path. Insufficient monitoring and tracking of progress for activities near the Critical Path, leading to potential delays going unnoticed until it's too late
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4 & 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Project Controls continual reviewing the Schedule and outstanding work. Work with contractor to accelerate schedule activities where practical. Review Resource levelling, quality of workforce, materials or incentivise.
Risk Actions Description: PMT not understanding how a Project can move faster and not fully comprehending the Critical Path in a schedule.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Immediately
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Need to hold a "Clear the Air Meeting" with FIAL and sudject ways to become more effective. Possibly less Client distractions.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Increase the standards of Client Project Controls to learn to be more effective.

Source row 123: Project: No (very Little) After Sales Support from Vendor

#: 42
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Construction
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-22
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: No (very Little) After Sales Support from Vendor
Consequences / Impact: Lack of TDE After Sales Support, predominantly due to way the PO was structured. 95% fully paid as ship arrives at Libyan Port. Client have no position of strength to have anything resolved by TDE. a. Schedule Slip. b. High Risk to FIAL Claim of inactivity waiting on Client. c. Criticality: i. Complex Design: TDE Lack of Process knowledge with Significant Interfaces: i. Experience with TDE, Lack of Help with little Communication: Poor Performance, iii. Manufacturing Complexity: Complex Production Techniques:iv. TDE No Experience with Complex Process Equipment Products
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Change the contract and withhold large % of funds to ensure Aftersales Team is still available during performance testing
Risk Actions Description: Large time delay between receiving equipment, construction and start-up so additional cost necessary to ensure Aftersales Team is made available to support the project.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Immediately
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Failed, learn for the future
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: More robust contract required for future Projects.

Source row 124: Project: Ensure a review of SIMOPs (Simulataneous Operations) has been carried-out before Transfer to Pre-Commissioning Activities.

#: 43
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Safety
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-22
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Ensure a review of SIMOPs (Simulataneous Operations) has been carried-out before Transfer to Pre-Commissioning Activities.
Consequences / Impact: A Critical final check of Mechanical Completion prior to the handover to Pre-Commissioning, all SIMOPs activities should be known on the Upgrade site on a daily basis with Safety Meeting everyday highlighting SIMOPs activities
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: FIAL
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Carrying Out a SIMOPs dry run to ensure all personnel are aware of the activities and what is expected and how coordination between both Construction and Commissioning Teams operates
Risk Actions Description: Early days of carrying out SIMOPs is the most dangerous due to new activities being introduced. Ensure everyone has had some viewing on how to conduct them selves with SIMOPs
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Immediately
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Carryout Dry run with FIAL and Client Personnel
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Earlier appraisal of documentation concerning SIMOPs required in the future

Source row 125: Project: Operations installed 3 valves for FPIUG: 1. Raw Gas Inlet, 2. Sales Gas Outlet, and 3. Bypass between 1 and 2. The Gas Inlet and bypass valves do not have handwheels, and we could not identify the model; moreover, these valves are more than 20 years old. It is better for Operations to retrofit or replace the valves as soon as possible, as they are critical to FPIUG operation.

#: 44
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Mechanical Static and Rotating
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-22
Identify / Change by: ST
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Operations installed 3 valves for FPIUG: 1. Raw Gas Inlet, 2. Sales Gas Outlet, and 3. Bypass between 1 and 2. The Gas Inlet and bypass valves do not have handwheels, and we could not identify the model; moreover, these valves are more than 20 years old. It is better for Operations to retrofit or replace the valves as soon as possible, as they are critical to FPIUG operation.
Consequences / Impact: The valves are critical to the success of the Faregh Up-Grade and under Operations Control. To remove any Risk the Project are requesting that the valves be replaced.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client Operations
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 2
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 10
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -9
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Contact Operations and request replacement of Valves during Planned Shutdown when Tie-In to be completed
Risk Actions Description: Operations may not have replacement valves and PO may take time to acquire
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Immediately
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: No action to date in contacting Operations
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Forward Planning and ensuring spare equipment is on site ready for installation

Source row 126: Project Electrical: WO2 Electrical Tie-In on new MV Switchgear Units existing in MV Switchgear Substation: Qualified personnel to perform installation and work to be completed by Operations and Engineering (Construction): Note this work is not to be used with Contractor Services. Now PM & SM are discussing Contractor. KJA not seen a revised WO with consent from Operations or Engineering Also 8.26 MV Switchgear - Existing Substation clearly states Contractor to Contract Switchgear / MCC Vendor for installation hook-up and start-up

#: 45
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Electrical
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-22
Identify / Change by: NK
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project Electrical: WO2 Electrical Tie-In on new MV Switchgear Units existing in MV Switchgear Substation: Qualified personnel to perform installation and work to be completed by Operations and Engineering (Construction): Note this work is not to be used with Contractor Services. Now PM & SM are discussing Contractor. KJA not seen a revised WO with consent from Operations or Engineering Also 8.26 MV Switchgear - Existing Substation clearly states Contractor to Contract Switchgear / MCC Vendor for installation hook-up and start-up
Consequences / Impact: Risk of life and Risk of Equipment damage if wrong persons used to connect the existing switchgear with new 4.16kv cubicles.. Cannot use FIAL Construction as the representative for critical connections in the original Power Station Switch Gear Room. If a mistake is made then it effects the entire facility and not just Faregh Upgrade Project. Need Operations & Engineering to complete the Critical Work
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Vendor
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Good Communication required between the Vendor and the Site Team on planning the necessary Shutdown in coordination with NOC operations. The difficulty of getting a visa issued and a person into Libya and then the Shutdown is very difficult but critical
Risk Actions Description: Risk to Life if allowing Contractor opportunity to make critical decisions. 'Reliance upon a Vendor and getting a Visa and into Country will be extremely difficult to organise. Nothing to suggest this can be handled easily or effiently.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Immediately
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Constant dicussions, between immigration, Operations, Vendor and PMT to be able to successfully make this work
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure a specialist can take control of difficult work entries who has the knowledge of these issues. Not just a member of PMT.

Source row 127: Project Electrical: WO2 Electrical Tie-In in the Substation: Ensure Back-Up Diesel Generator availablity with sufficient diesel to function for up to seven (7) days during WO2 Tie-In work in Main Substation for Faregh Upgrade

#: 46
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Procurement
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-22
Identify / Change by: NK
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project Electrical: WO2 Electrical Tie-In in the Substation: Ensure Back-Up Diesel Generator availablity with sufficient diesel to function for up to seven (7) days during WO2 Tie-In work in Main Substation for Faregh Upgrade
Consequences / Impact: If insufficent Diesel is available then the Support Camp will have a Blackout and all work will stop due to lack of having suffient fuel
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Reputational
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client Electrical
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 12
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure Deisel availabe before any work is required
Risk Actions Description: Loss of power to the Camp will cause added difficulties
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Immediately
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Verification of load availability and spare feeders before finalizing the decision to add the new equipment.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: All facilities which requires back up power during the tie-ins shall be considered at the early stage of the project and properly planned

Source row 128: Project Electrical: Need to understand the Power requirments of the new proposed Instrument Air Package currently awaiting PO Approval to see if the new MCC can accommodate the power requirements and additional Tie-Ins, Breakers etc and what new Substation equipment is required

#: 47
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Electrical
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-22
Identify / Change by: NK
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project Electrical: Need to understand the Power requirments of the new proposed Instrument Air Package currently awaiting PO Approval to see if the new MCC can accommodate the power requirements and additional Tie-Ins, Breakers etc and what new Substation equipment is required
Consequences / Impact: Not having sufficient Instrument Air to run the Faregh Upgrade will stop all activities, so ensuring there is sufficient tie-in points and ample power for the Instrument Air from the new MCC is critical for success.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phases 4 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client Electrical
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Process needs to be more proactive during the design, FEED to be separate from Detailed Design would have picked up the need for an Instrument Air Package
Risk Actions Description: Time to install a new unit will slow the schedule and delay the time of delivery.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Immediately
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Carryout Dry run with FIAL and Client Personnel
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: All major equipment which need power supply need to be included at the early stage of the project and considered in the load list

Source row 129: Project Electrical: All batteries for MCC Room Battery Bank to be replaced due to storage of over 3 Years. Waiting for PO to be sign and purchased

#: 48
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Procurement
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2026-04-22
Identify / Change by: NK
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project Electrical: All batteries for MCC Room Battery Bank to be replaced due to storage of over 3 Years. Waiting for PO to be sign and purchased
Consequences / Impact: Batteries required for Faregh Upgrade. If not purchased and fitted in time then start-up will be impossible and will delay the Project.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: EPC Phase 4
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 4
Exposure Start Date: Phase 4
Exposure End Date: Phase 4
Responsible Party: Client Electrical
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 2
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 10
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -9
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Need to check capabilities of batteries without any electrolyte added. Longterm planning should only purchase batteries when date is actually known
Risk Actions Description: Tighter time scale and buying items "Just in Time"
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Immediately
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Carryout Dry run with FIAL and Client Personnel
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Learn Just in Time techniques and order equipment just prior to requiring

Source row 130: General to other Projects: No Preparation for Pre-Start Safety Review PSSR Procedure no discussions or documentation seen ready for Implementation

#: 1
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Safety
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: No Preparation for Pre-Start Safety Review PSSR Procedure no discussions or documentation seen ready for Implementation
Consequences / Impact: A Critical part of Phase 5 is the PSSR, Safety manager has to sign off ALL PSSRs and review all associated Punch Items
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 5
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Carrying Out a PSSR will ensure final checks on the system have been closely reviewed and peoples safety has been taken into account
Risk Actions Description: Client are not known to carry out PSSR and a Safety Manager has to be made available to sign off PSSR Stage
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Need Commissioning Manager to organise PSSR and infom FIAL
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure Client Documentation supports PSSR checks

Source row 131: General to other Projects: No Preparation for LOTO witnessed, no mention of Lock Out Boards and multi coloured Padlocks no discussions or documentation seen ready for implementation

#: 2
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Safety
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: No Preparation for LOTO witnessed, no mention of Lock Out Boards and multi coloured Padlocks no discussions or documentation seen ready for implementation
Consequences / Impact: LOT (Lock Out Tag Out) Critical part of Phase 5, safe practices during entergisation of the system whilst both Construction and Commissioning personnel work on the same system. Protection of lives
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Carrying Out a Lock Out Tag Out (LOTO) will increase the safety of personnel on site during dual activities. Ensure All Locks (Colour Coded) and Boards and Equipment Available for Implementation of Lock-Out Tag-Out (LOTO) available on site
Risk Actions Description: Client are not known to carry out LOTO and need to maximise safety and the protect of personnel at work
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Ensure Valve Sequencing and Alignment with LOTO ready to be implemented. Need Commissioning Manager to organise LOT Equipment ASAP and infom FIAL
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure Client Documentation supports LOTO checks. Meeting with all personnel in the field to ensre they are aware of changes on site

Source row 132: General to other Projects: Preparation for Gross Air Leak Testing and Air Leak Testing. Not witnessed Gross Air Leak and Nitrogen/Helium Leak Testing Procedure or seen the necessary equipment required to safely carryout testing

#: 3
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Preparation for Gross Air Leak Testing and Air Leak Testing. Not witnessed Gross Air Leak and Nitrogen/Helium Leak Testing Procedure or seen the necessary equipment required to safely carryout testing
Consequences / Impact: As TDE have not shown any flange management information then it is highly critical to carryout Gross Air Leak Testing and Leak Testing
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Carrying Out a Gross Air Leak Tests critical with system using Hydrocarbons. Commissioning to ensure final checks on the system have been closely reviewed and peoples safety has been taken into account
Risk Actions Description: Risk of introducing moisture into the system when carrying out Gross Air Tests
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Need Commissioning Manager to organise Testing with FIAL
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure all necessary records have been built to support checks of Air Leak Testing (Become a standard Client Document)

Source row 133: General to other Projects: Additional Set of PRVs required, unable to send for calibration without shutting the process down. One-for-One Change Out requiredImpact on Pre - Comm & Commissioning Phases

#: 3
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Procurement
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Additional Set of PRVs required, unable to send for calibration without shutting the process down. One-for-One Change Out requiredImpact on Pre - Comm & Commissioning Phases
Consequences / Impact: 3-6 Months calibration certificate warranty before recalibration needed when fitted to equipment and not used. Need a full set of additional PRVs to prevent shutting system down during Pre-comm & Comm Phases 5 & 6
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: During Procurement Phase of equipment ensure PRvs are bought as part of 2 years supply of spares
Risk Actions Description: Buying spare PRVs will prevent a premature shut down during the remaining Phases due to lack of spares.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Will commence during the purchasing of equipment
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Need to ensure Client have a very good Planner available to ensure Contractor implements basic requirements

Source row 134: Project PMT had witnessed that Client Upper Management kept sending the Client Commissioning Manager personnel with zero Commissioning Experience and not the necessary Commissioning System Matter Experts.

#: 4
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-20
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project PMT had witnessed that Client Upper Management kept sending the Client Commissioning Manager personnel with zero Commissioning Experience and not the necessary Commissioning System Matter Experts.
Consequences / Impact: Sending unqualified Commissioning personnel to aid Commissioning activities is extremely dangerous and can cause injury to personnel and also damage equipment with Long Lead Time
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure professional Commissioning Leads are available during Commissioning Phases
Risk Actions Description: Damage to people and equipment will occur if sending inexperienced people to site
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Personnel will onboarded during the EPC Phase and aid in Mechanical Handover and collating Punch Items
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Hiring the right person for the right job at the right time

Source row 135: General to other Projects: SIMOP Permit Control: Critical Period, Ensure a comprehensive understanding to critical changes in permit to Work Procedure is fully understood by Construction, Commissioning and Operations personnel

#: 5
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: HSE
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: SIMOP Permit Control: Critical Period, Ensure a comprehensive understanding to critical changes in permit to Work Procedure is fully understood by Construction, Commissioning and Operations personnel
Consequences / Impact: SIMOPs increases the risk to personnel and damage to equipment, when starting the Change-Over from Construction Permits to SIMOPs and Pre-Commissioning permit with Lock Out Tag Out Control and with more detailed Risk Assessments required. Change brings higher initial risks
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 3
Severity (after mitigation): 3
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 9
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -16
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure that Client are proactive at ensuring a robust Permit to Work system with Lock Out Tag Out (LOTO) is in place prior to ever reaching the stage of SIMOPs. Reviewed and Approved
Risk Actions Description: Not having a robust system will vastly increase safety incidents on site when transitioning the Permit to Work System
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: During the FEED a comprehensive study of Permit to Work System will be put in place and further reviewed during detailed design.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure Client hire the right person for implementing change for SIMOPs, PTW and LOTO operations, using colour coded lock systems

Source row 136: Project: First Fill Chemicals for Commissioning & Startup. Issue with Libyan ports refusing to receive Methanol, this specific item will be rerouted by road via Tunisia

#: 6
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Procurement
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: First Fill Chemicals for Commissioning & Startup. Issue with Libyan ports refusing to receive Methanol, this specific item will be rerouted by road via Tunisia
Consequences / Impact: Chemicals required for Commissioning and Start-Up
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 weeks
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Occupational Safety and Health
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 2
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 10
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -9
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure future imports of Methanol are immediately routed through Tunisia and prevent delays at Libyan Ports
Risk Actions Description: Reroute imports, port delays due to Libyan Customs
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: All Methanol to be routed through Tunisia and brought to Libya by land
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Don't use Ports for importing Methanol just land routes

Source row 137: Project: Expirey date of first Fills such as Compressor/Motor Lube Oils, Greases, Anti-Foam/Corrossion Inhibitors, Methanol, Glycol and other Chemicals.

#: 7
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Procurement
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: CM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Expirey date of first Fills such as Compressor/Motor Lube Oils, Greases, Anti-Foam/Corrossion Inhibitors, Methanol, Glycol and other Chemicals.
Consequences / Impact: Commissioning Team MPD need to check the expiry date as some have already been delivered. 1- TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL 99.9 % : 125 drums & Expiration date 07/2027. 2- Compressor/motor lub-oil : 04 drums & Retest date 04/12/2027.Chemicals required for Commissioning and Start-Up
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Better schedule understanding and a better financial push from Senior Management in ensuring funds are available to complete the project in a reasonable time scale
Risk Actions Description: Further delays could occur if the schedule extends and the fluids already purchased expire
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: ASAP
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Only when funds are released will a correct schedule be able to be produced
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: A realistic understanding of delays of a Project will prevent Liquids being bought to soon.

Source row 138: Project FIAL has provided offer for Commissioning Spares for Valves . However, List of required spare parts for two yrs of operations needed by supplier also additional Capital Spares required ( Studs / Conusmables / Filters/ Gaskets etc)

#: 8
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-09-14
Identify / Change by: PE
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project FIAL has provided offer for Commissioning Spares for Valves . However, List of required spare parts for two yrs of operations needed by supplier also additional Capital Spares required ( Studs / Conusmables / Filters/ Gaskets etc)
Consequences / Impact: Commissioning Team MPD need to check the expiry date as some have already been delivered. 1- TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL 99.9 % : 125 drums & Expiration date 07/2027. 2- Compressor/motor lub-oil : 04 drums & Retest date 04/12/2027.Chemicals required for Commissioning and Start-Up
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Mediate Good Communication between Operations and FIAL and timely response will prevent
Risk Actions Description: Communication lost and easily forgotten when not directly involved with purchasing. Spares will most likely be required after initial start-up so purchasing all the spares is a priority
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: End of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: FIAL reminded on December 09-2025- Action Owner / delegate to 1- confirm the comissioning spares cover gaskets, studs, valves ( packing if required) etc. 2- clarify the type of two year spare parts as per manufacturer ( if more then valves )and commuicate with FIAL .
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Closely liaise between Operations and FIAL to ensure the correct amount of spares has been purchased

Source row 139: Project: Lack of Pre-Commissioning and Commissioning Documentation 6 out of 36 Completed. Highlighting a severely slow documentation cycle

#: 9
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-09-14
Identify / Change by: PE
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Lack of Pre-Commissioning and Commissioning Documentation 6 out of 36 Completed. Highlighting a severely slow documentation cycle
Consequences / Impact: No Procedure no start up. As of December 12 -2025, 6 of 36
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure FIAL have sufficient support from TDE for producing complete and accurate Pre-Commissioning and Commissioning documentation
Risk Actions Description: Due to the poor quality of documents produced by TDE then additional help from FIAL has been required. This gap creates uncertainty with the quality of the documents and prolongs their writing time.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: End of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Ensure all the correct documentation has been completed using vendor documents during Detailed Design and negating the requirement of Construction Company to compile
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Closer scrutiny of Detailed Design documentation and ensure first draft of all PCC Documentation has been completed in the early start of Phase 4

Source row 140: Project: FAT tested control system application backup is not available with TDE provided laptops & Operator Work Station

#: 10
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-09-14
Identify / Change by: CM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: FAT tested control system application backup is not available with TDE provided laptops & Operator Work Station
Consequences / Impact: Logic testing, Loop checking & commissioning cannot be conducted without latest application backup.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: TDE should check the application back up in their server/computer and will provide to NOC
Risk Actions Description: Co-ordinate with TDE and get the latest application backup and copy to appropriate work station.TDE control system Engineer should ensure latest applkication backup is availble when come for site support.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: End of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Ensure TDE act accordingly and quickly
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Quality checks early within the Project would have raised the issue

Source row 141: Project: Inadequate Capacity or Capability of Pre-Commissioning & Commissioning (PCC) Contractors Team

#: 11
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-09-14
Identify / Change by: CM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Inadequate Capacity or Capability of Pre-Commissioning & Commissioning (PCC) Contractors Team
Consequences / Impact: The Contractor lacks the technical and organisational capability to properly perform Pre-Commissioning and Commissioning activities (e.g., unqualified personnel, inadequate procedures, poor planning). This may jeopardise the quality of Testing, Plant Safety, and Project Deadlines.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Reinforce Client Team incase Contractor is unable to provide a sufficiently competent team
Risk Actions Description: Given this critical situation, the Client must urgently reinforce its team by assigning qualified and competent engineers across all relevant disciplines (mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, process, etc.), with proven experience in Pre-Commissioning and Commissioning activities. This reinforcement is essential to: 1. Effectively supervise the contractor’s activities, 2. Ensure strict implementation of approved procedures, 3. Maintain quality control over testing, 4. And secure compliance with commissioning milestones.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: End of Phase 5
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Ensure Qualitifications of Commissioning Personnel are provided before Contracts are sign to ensure resources are available
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: During the awarding of a Contract it is advisable to check Contractor Provided CVs of competent Commissioning Personnel

Source row 142: Project: Laboratory Analysis Required

#: 12
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-09-14
Identify / Change by: CM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Laboratory Analysis Required
Consequences / Impact: The filled sample bombs must be quickly transpored to the laboratory to avoid temperature and pressure changes that could affect the results. OR bring Mobile Laboratory to site
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Laboratory must be located close to the Project Site.
Risk Actions Description: Avoid Temperature and Presure changes that could affect the results.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 5
Action Due Date: End of Phase 5
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Need to investigate the possibility of bringing a Mobile Laboratory to Project Upgrade Site
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Early Planning is critical in securing dates of using a Mobile Service for testing Oils

Source row 143: Project: Laboratory Analysis Sample Bombs

#: 13
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-09-14
Identify / Change by: CM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Laboratory Analysis Sample Bombs
Consequences / Impact: If the required sample bombs are not available, the Performance Test cannot be conducted, resuliting in delays to the Testing Schedule and potenteil non-compliance validation protocols.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Provode Total of nine (9) Bombs.
Risk Actions Description: Avoid Temperature and Presure changes that could affect the results.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 5
Action Due Date: Phase 5
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Three (3) Sample Bombs per sampling point (SP) are required. Total of nine (9) bombs must be available to mitigate the risk.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Early Planning is critical in securing Sample Bombs for testing Oils

Source row 144: Project: Inadequate Commissioning Spares. Inadequate spares will affect the Schedule of Commissioning and Start-Up and ultimately Operation and Production.

#: 14
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-09-14
Identify / Change by: CM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Inadequate Commissioning Spares. Inadequate spares will affect the Schedule of Commissioning and Start-Up and ultimately Operation and Production.
Consequences / Impact: Machinery failures expected during Commissioning and Start-Up known as "Early Life Failure". Especially spares parts of Rotating Machinery are currently not available this will impact Commissioning and Start-Up Shedule and an increase in Project Cost. Rotating Equipment (pumps, compressors) have different Criticalities depending upon the process handled. For Static equipment, Gaskets, Bolts,nuts, washers are general spares part.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Pre-Commissioning Phase 5
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 5
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Purchase and store additional Two Years Maintenace Spare Parts. If not required in Commissioning then Handover to Operation with Cost Reversal.
Risk Actions Description: Additional Cost to Project, but delay versus cost sudjects additional Spares to be purchased
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: End of Phase 4
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Not recorded
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Build a List of Supplies and Buy Extra Spares.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Early Planning is critical in securing additional costs for more Spares than normally received.

Source row 145: Project: Inadequate Capacity or Capability of Pre-Commissioning & Commissioning (PCC) Contractors Team

#: 1
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Inadequate Capacity or Capability of Pre-Commissioning & Commissioning (PCC) Contractors Team
Consequences / Impact: Commissioning unable to continue due to lack of spares when equipment breakdown
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Commissioning Phase 6
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 6
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure that a separate PO is struck at the same time of purchasing equipment. 2 Years Spares should be the ones recommended by OEM
Risk Actions Description: Ensure 2 years Spare parts are sent to site at the same time as the equipment to ensure good traceability.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Phase 5-9
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Commissionijng Phase
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Maintain open communication with suppliers and closely monitor potential disruptions
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Issuing a PO for 2 Years supply will prevent future delays

Source row 146: General to other Projects: Risk of Vendors/Suppliers unwilling to travel to site for Troubleshooting and General Start-Up.

#: 2
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Inspection Team
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Risk of Vendors/Suppliers unwilling to travel to site for Troubleshooting and General Start-Up.
Consequences / Impact: Commissioning unable to continue due to lack of Expert evaluation
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 3 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Commissioning Phase 6
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 6
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 16
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -15
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Explore with vendors potential partnerships in country to provide support. ITT to Specify Factory and Site Acceptance Test of Equipment/Modules where possible.
Risk Actions Description: Using partnership Companies as witnesses is a Risk but all Risk of 3rd Party is the responsibility of the Vendor (who Championed specific individuals)
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 2
Action Due Date: Phase 5-9
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Commissionijng Phase
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: During Procurement of Equipment then ensure written within Contract Terms & Conditions (T&Cs).
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Issuing a PO for 2 Years supply will prevent future delays

Source row 147: Project Commissioning Team: Lack of Commissioning Preparedness, insufficient documentation and review during Phase 2 to 5 due to lack of Commissioning overview at documentation conception.

#: 3
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project Commissioning Team: Lack of Commissioning Preparedness, insufficient documentation and review during Phase 2 to 5 due to lack of Commissioning overview at documentation conception.
Consequences / Impact: The lack of Commissioning preparation has a significant impact on reviewing specific procedures, checking materials, ensuring the correct personnel are made available. All creating a backlog in of work to be accomplished during Phase 6.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Commissioning Phase 6
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 6
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure Client Commissioning Personnel are brought onto the project at the FEED writing and reviewing procedures and inspection of Vendor Manufactures Record Book prior to payment and shipping.
Risk Actions Description: Ensure all Commissioning recommendations carried out in the FEED & Detailed design Phases, Commissioning Lists have been included in the book.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 3
Action Due Date: Phase 5-7
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Commissionijng Phase
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Review of all Commissioning Steps prior to entering Commissioning Phase.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Early Hire of Commissioning Manager to prevent delays, part of PMT Core Team

Source row 148: The Project PMT have noted a Lack of Quality information in Manufacturers Record Books during equipment manufacture has direct Impact on Commissioning Phase

#: 4
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Quality
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: The Project PMT have noted a Lack of Quality information in Manufacturers Record Books during equipment manufacture has direct Impact on Commissioning Phase
Consequences / Impact: Due to the Lack of Factory Acceptance Testing and the lack of physical final review of Manufacturers Record Book ensured no 3rd Parties or Operators could use the MRB as the primary source of information for Commissioning
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Commissioning Phase 6
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 3 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 6
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure Client personnel fully understand what information is required in a Manufactures Record Book and ensure all the relevant information has been fully reviewed prior to equipment being shipped.
Risk Actions Description: Ensure all comments have been incororated into records, Ensure correct and relevant information has been placed in MRB, ensure all testing Data and Commissioning Lists have been included in the book.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 4
Action Due Date: Phase 4-9
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Commissionijng Phase
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Review MRB before Equipment can be released ready for shippment and ensure no payment for manufacturing Completion has been done until MRB has been fully signed off by Client personnel.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: To use own employees rather than 3rd party Inspection Teams who have no responsibility of quality of product once equipment left Vendor Building

Source row 149: The Project PMT have noted the existing Unit's Instrument and Utility Air package is not suitable for the FPIUGP, as is not dried. . Quality of IA is extremely poor within Phase 1 and IA is not currently ready to be used. Project PMT are also unsure if the capacity of IA required for Faregh Phase 1 Upgrade will be able to be supplied by existing Station as New Station has not yet been designed.

#: 5
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-30
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: The Project PMT have noted the existing Unit's Instrument and Utility Air package is not suitable for the FPIUGP, as is not dried. . Quality of IA is extremely poor within Phase 1 and IA is not currently ready to be used. Project PMT are also unsure if the capacity of IA required for Faregh Phase 1 Upgrade will be able to be supplied by existing Station as New Station has not yet been designed.
Consequences / Impact: Failure of safety or control valves. Unit trip often, prodution loss. Safety hazard due to poor system response. Non-compliance with instrumentaion air quality standards. PMT have to rely upon Operations Team to deliver high quality Instrument Air.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Commissioning Phase 6
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 6
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 20
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -19
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ongoing follow up with Operations Department. Need to resolve any issues at the earliest convenience to ensure a statisfactory supply can be used. Rental or Purchase a Containerised Instrument Air Skid. 1- Description: Rapid deployement of all-in-one (compressor, .dryer, receiver, filtration.) 2- Commonly used in oil and gas for temporary projects needs.
Risk Actions Description: Not have clean Instrument Air going into new equipment is a High Risk factor, not have sufficient IA is also High Risk and can comprimise the Project
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: Phase 2
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start of Commissionijng Phase
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Confirmation on the readiness of Faregh Phase I station Instrument Air compressors from Operations. Ongoing follow up with Operations Department.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Closely liaise with Operations and Engineering to ensure there are no problems prior to start up and all systems checked

Source row 150: The Project PMT require Ethane calibration Gas kit to re-calibrate the 14 x Detectors fitted to new equipment. Kit at TDE Premises & to be shipped to Libya.

#: 6
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-30
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: The Project PMT require Ethane calibration Gas kit to re-calibrate the 14 x Detectors fitted to new equipment. Kit at TDE Premises & to be shipped to Libya.
Consequences / Impact: Require the Dectors to be Calibrated during Commissioning of the new skids. Safety Issue
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Weeks
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Commissioning Phase 6
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 6
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 16
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -15
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Contact with TDE and ensure Calibration Gas Kit is sent to site ASAP
Risk Actions Description: If equipment not correctly calibrated it is a high risk when running the equipment
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start of Commissionijng Phase
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Buy a new machine straightaway or aquire as promised from TDE. Do not wait until required, send ASAP
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure equipment is sent with all test equipment at the start of the Project

Source row 151: Project require FAX NOC-TDE-FPIUG-138_Latest Application Backup for PCS-ESD-FGS-COMPRESSORS. TDE to provide.

#: 7
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-30
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project require FAX NOC-TDE-FPIUG-138_Latest Application Backup for PCS-ESD-FGS-COMPRESSORS. TDE to provide.
Consequences / Impact: Require Back-Up system to ensure Commissioning of Compressors is smooth with no issues
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Weeks
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Commissioning Phase 6
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 6
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 9
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -8
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Contact with TDE and ensure Latest Application Back-Up is available from TDE and is sent to site ASAP
Risk Actions Description: If equipment not correctly set up then issues may be created during Commissioning activities of Project Commissioning Team
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start of Commissionijng Phase
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Send Application ASAP. PM is requesting Back from TDE
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure equipment is sent with all the necessary Back-Up for Compressors

Source row 152: Project PMT: require confirmation from TDE/MyCom that the relay module of Bentley-Nevada-3500 is appropriate to be used as a primary “protective relay” to trip the compressor motor based on the temperature of the bearing Ristance Temperature Detector (RTD).

#: 8
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-30
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project PMT: require confirmation from TDE/MyCom that the relay module of Bentley-Nevada-3500 is appropriate to be used as a primary “protective relay” to trip the compressor motor based on the temperature of the bearing Ristance Temperature Detector (RTD).
Consequences / Impact: Project Commissioning Team need confirmation from TDE/Mycom – RTD Trip Signal Configration for Compressors is smooth with no issues. Without the Compressors the Plant is unable to start
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Commissioning Phase 6
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 6
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 16
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -15
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Contact with TDE to guarantee that the Module is fit for purpose, if any remedial action is required then this should be resolved ASAP
Risk Actions Description: If equipment not correctly set up then issues may be created during Commissioning activities of Project Commissioning Team
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start of Commissionijng Phase
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: PM is requesting guarantee that the system is adequately protected
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure equipment is sent with all the necessary Back-Up for Compressors

Source row 153: Project PMT: require confirmation from Operations for the current status of the Two Years Spare Parts critical during the Commissioning Phase due to the delay in installation and the Higher than normal risk of machinery failure due to sat in a Desert for 2 years. It is also essential to assertain if OEM 2 Years recommended spares list was followed.

#: 9
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 3. Commercial
Stage of Project Risk: Project Execution
Risk Discipline: Commissioning
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-30
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project PMT: require confirmation from Operations for the current status of the Two Years Spare Parts critical during the Commissioning Phase due to the delay in installation and the Higher than normal risk of machinery failure due to sat in a Desert for 2 years. It is also essential to assertain if OEM 2 Years recommended spares list was followed.
Consequences / Impact: Project Commissioning Team need confirmation from TDE/Mycom – RTD Trip Signal Configration for Compressors is smooth with no issues. Without the Compressors the Plant is unable to start
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Commissioning Phase 6
Major Risk Impact Area: Schedule
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 5 to 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 6
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 16
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -15
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ongoing follow up with Operations Department. Need to resolve any issues at the earliest convenience to ensure a statisfactory supply can be forwarded to Faregh Phase I Up-Grade.
Risk Actions Description: Due to a delay from Manufacture to Operations the equipment is expected to have multiple failures and two years supply of spares is crucial to the start of the Commissioning Phase.
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 5
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Start of Commissionijng Phase
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Memo sent to Operations in December 2022 and reminder was sent in October 2025
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure equipment is sent with all the necessary Back-Up for Compressors

Source row 154: 5923 Commissioning Team to ensure that handling and availability of Propane Refrigerant for Commissioing and Start-up does not become an issue

#: 1
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Turnover
Risk Discipline: Operations
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-25
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: 5923 Commissioning Team to ensure that handling and availability of Propane Refrigerant for Commissioing and Start-up does not become an issue
Consequences / Impact: Lack of follow-up from Project Team with Operations might ensure insufficient Propane Refridgerant is available at the correct time and delays to Commissioning occur
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Initial Operations Phase 7
Major Risk Impact Area: Production/Reliability
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 7
Exposure Start Date: Start of Initial Operations
Exposure End Date: Phase 7
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 3
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 12
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -11
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Plan to ensure open dialog between Project PMT and Operations keeps open to ensure that when Refridgerant is required then there should be no issues
Risk Actions Description: Lack of follow-up with Operations and sufficient Propane Refridgerant isn't available at the correct time
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Project Management Team
Action Start Date: ASAP
Action Due Date: Start of Phase 6
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Initial Operations Phase
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: MPD and Operations to coordinate to ensure the required quantity before the start-up of the plant.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Not recorded

Source row 155: Project: Confirm Avaialbility of 2 x HP's of Faregh Phase 2 and one LPs for guaranteed Performance Period.

#: 1
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Turnover
Risk Discipline: Operations
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-30
Identify / Change by: PE
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: Confirm Avaialbility of 2 x HP's of Faregh Phase 2 and one LPs for guaranteed Performance Period.
Consequences / Impact: If the data for Plant Start-Up of Project does not coincide with Faregh Phase II shutdown further delays will occur. If Faregh Phase II is forced to close down to aid Faregh Phase I Testing then revenue will have been lost due to lack of Production.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 4 Month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Plant Start-Up & Performance Testing Phase 8
Major Risk Impact Area: Production/Reliability
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 8
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 8
Exposure End Date: Phase 8
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ongoing follow up with Operations Department. About HP and LP. required for 72 hrs . As per meeting In Nov - OPs / Maint stated that HPs are available and overhauled . However, there is an overhaul planned in 2026?. Assurance is required closer to time during Commissioning to ensure capacity of 30 MMSCFD run for 72 hrs
Risk Actions Description: Window of opportunity to ensure Performance Testing needs to coincide with each other (Ready for Testing) and Faregh Phase II Planned Shutdown when work can be conducted
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client PMT & Operations Teams
Action Start Date: Start of Phase 8
Action Due Date: End of Performance Testing
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Performance Testing
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Ongoing Follow-Up with Operations with dialog constantly open to ensure use of HP and LP Faregh Phase 2
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure open dialog between Operations and Project PMT is open and transparent

Source row 156: Project: The existing Faregh Phase II Operation shall be ready to supply Gas Flow at the expected Design Capacity with operating pressure and temperature

#: 2
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Turnover
Risk Discipline: Operations
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-31
Identify / Change by: PE
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: The existing Faregh Phase II Operation shall be ready to supply Gas Flow at the expected Design Capacity with operating pressure and temperature
Consequences / Impact: If the data for Plant Start-Up of Project does not coincide with Faregh Phase II shutdown further delays will occur. If Faregh Phase II is forced to close down to aid Faregh Phase I Testing then revenue will have been lost due to lack of Production.
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 4 Month
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Plant Start-Up & Performance Testing Phase 8
Major Risk Impact Area: Production/Reliability
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 8
Exposure Start Date: Start of Phase 8
Exposure End Date: Phase 8
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 3
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 15
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -14
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: To be followed up with Operation Department. As per the Design Basis . Project would need 120 MMSCFD of Gas . Operations to ensure the supply . Specially during the preformance guarentee perios of 72 hrs -
Risk Actions Description: Window of opportunity to ensure Performance Testing needs to coincide with each other Area (Ready for Testing) and Faregh Phase II Planned Shutdown when work can be conducted
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client PMT & Operations Teams
Action Start Date: Start of Phase 8
Action Due Date: End of Performance Testing
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: End of Performance Testing
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Ongoing Follow-Up with Operations with dialog constantly open to ensure Project is supplied with the necessary 120 MMSCFD of Gas.
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: B
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure open dialog between Operations and Project PMT is open and transparent

Source row 157: Project Upgrade Project shares Processes between Faregh Phase 1 & 2. have the Risk of not performing due to excessive load requirements when services up-grade system

#: 1
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Operations
Risk Discipline: Process
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: PE
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project Upgrade Project shares Processes between Faregh Phase 1 & 2. have the Risk of not performing due to excessive load requirements when services up-grade system
Consequences / Impact: Existing Plant unable to cope with extra demand and alternative and thus more costly alternatives will be required. Building additional plants
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 2 Years
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Normal Operations Phase 9
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 9
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 5
Impact Score (score 1-5): 5
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 25
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -24
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Design Plant during FEED and understanding maximum load requirements needed when all plants are running will gave you the necessary design parameters needed.
Risk Actions Description: Current design doesn't leave much room for future expansion
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client PMT
Action Start Date: Start of Phase 9
Action Due Date: End of Phase 9
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Once financial agreement has been approved then will review the impact on future expansion using both scenarios of current design and future design
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: More experienced PMT members would have captured the potential of a problem during first FEED therefore more highly experienced people required

Source row 158: Project: TDE Comprehensive Training Program

#: 2
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Operations
Risk Discipline: Training
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-12-01
Identify / Change by: PM
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: Project: TDE Comprehensive Training Program
Consequences / Impact: Current 5923 PMT to send Memo (IOM) to be sent to Chairman for approval
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 1 Year
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Normal Operations Phase 9
Major Risk Impact Area: Production/Reliability
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 7
Exposure Start Date: Phase 9
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 16
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -15
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure Vendors on site to provide a Comprehensive Training Program to Client Operators to ensure optimal production performance from newly installed equipment
Risk Actions Description: Ensure Chairman has the backing of the financial department and ensure funds available to operate the newly installed equipment
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client Operations
Action Start Date: Start of Phase 9
Action Due Date: End of Phase 9
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Phase 2
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Once financial agreement has been approved will review the impact of current competencies compared to new training from TDE Vendors
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: The training of Client employees to perform high skilled jobs will enhance the company profile

Source row 159: General to other Projects: Lack of ownership of the new facilities by Operations

#: 3
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 4. Organizational
Stage of Project Risk: Operations
Risk Discipline: Operations
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Lack of ownership of the new facilities by Operations
Consequences / Impact: Operations unwilling to officially take control of new facility due to to many Punch Items still open
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Normal Operations Phase 9
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 7 to 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 9
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 2
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 8
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 1
Severity (after mitigation): 1
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 1
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -7
Risk Response Strategy: Mitigate
Risk Response Plan Outline: Ensure that all outstanding Punch Items have been cleared and all training has been performed to the satifaction of Operations. All spares are adequately logged and maintained, specialist tools handed over
Risk Actions Description: Cost Impact to CAPEX and less to OPEX as no official handover has taken place
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Client PMT
Action Start Date: Start of Phase 9
Action Due Date: End of Phase 9
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: H
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Phase 9
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: Ensure each Phase is correctly closed out to prevent any delays in handover to Operations
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Skilled Commissioning PMT will have a good understanding of requirments needed for a smooth handover

Source row 160: General to other Projects: Performance expected not reached at the right time (typically 2 years after SU) / vs Guarantees

#: 4
Type record: Risk
Project Risk Category: 1. Technical
Stage of Project Risk: Operations
Risk Discipline: Client
Facilities / WBS: Project
Risk Type (Threat or Opportunity): Threat
Capture Date: 2025-11-14
Identify / Change by: KJA
Risk Description: Causes & Event or Circumstance: General to other Projects: Performance expected not reached at the right time (typically 2 years after SU) / vs Guarantees
Consequences / Impact: Loss of revenue due to Poor Design of Plant or Reservoir Claculations incorrect. If design is incorrect contact lawyers and find resolution via the court of arbitration
Potential Schedule Impact / Days: 6 Months
Project Phase: Risk Effected: Normal Operations Phase 9
Major Risk Impact Area: CAPEX / Revenue
Timing / Project Milestones effected: Phase 9
Exposure Start Date: Phase 9
Exposure End Date: Phase 9
Responsible Party: Client
Risk Owner (Action By): Client Project Management
Probability Score (score 1-5): 4
Impact Score (score 1-5): 4
Risk Rating (Before mitigation): 16
Opportunity Rating (Before mitigation): Not recorded
Probability (after mitigation): 3
Severity (after mitigation): 2
Risk Rating (After mitigation): 6
Oportunity Rating (After mitigation): Not recorded
Mitigation Impact: -10
Risk Response Strategy: Accept
Risk Response Plan Outline: Very Little can be done until the reason is known
Risk Actions Description: Cost Impact to OPEX
Action By: Client
Action Owner: Operations
Action Start Date: Start of Phase 9
Action Due Date: End of Phase 9
Action Priority H/M/L: H
Action Probability of success: M
Action Status Open/Closed: Open
Action / Completion Date: Phase 9
Mitigation Status Action comments with Track Dates: No mitigation until problem is known
Risk Status A. Identified B. In Mitigation C. Closed: A
Risk Closure Date: Not recorded
Risk Comments Overall Control Effectiveness (by Risk owner) Description of the Reasons for the Risk Closure: Not recorded
Lessons Learned: Ensure when designing the Plant high performance professionals are involved during the design stage to reduce risks